3 ms·

I'm familiar with all the various claims. Although I haven't seen anything seriously disputing the 31 on-site number, beyond +/-5. I said >>Maybe 60 for eventu

I'm familiar with all the various claims. Although I haven't seen anything seriously disputing the 31 on-site number, beyond +/-5. I said >>Maybe 60 for eventual cancer deaths for people that were actually on-site. It's the 10,000+ numbers that I take real issue with. And am skeptical of even the 4,000 "agreed-upon" estimate. I don't doubt radiation was released. I don't doubt radiation exposure can increase risk of cancer. But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site. I get that radiation plays a part in increased cancer risk. Claiming that there were 1,010,000 cancer deaths, but there should have only been 1,000,000, and not being able to tell which 10,000 were "caused by Chernobyl" is problematic for me. It diminishes the pain of the other 1,000,000. Is this logical? Idk Some studies in Fukushima claim over 1,000 more people have died by continued forced evacuation, than if they been had been allowed to return to the exclusion zone after a few weeks. It just gets hard to take these numbers seriously when you only have statistical speculation to rely on. Moreso to treat them with the same equivalence as deaths on-site.

bb88 7y ago
> But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site. Agreed, but it's necessary if the government lies to you -- which of course was a frequent problem with the soviets. More recently, the Puerto Rico death toll for Hurricane Maria was just 64, and remained that way for a year. The only way it was eventually changed was proving (through statistical analysis) that the death toll was in fact higher.
- beerandt 7y ago
  Yea, I have a major problem with how they did that one also. That's not proof or causation, it's at most correlation. But there's no way to normalize for variable independence. If a 99 year old was on life support when the power went out and died a month earlier than they otherwise would have, that got counted. But Maria didn't kill that person. I get that this is somewhat debatable semantics, but it shouldn't be. And that's my point. There are really two sets of numbers that are being called the same thing when they clearly are not.
  - bb88 7y ago
    The death toll stayed for a year at 64, making it look like there was no real human suffering. The US President used that as political cover for denying the funds for disaster relief. You can say "See, Chernobyl wasn't so bad. Nuclear power accidents aren't as bad as they say." Meanwhile the mismanagement of Chernobyl is still regarded as one of the greatest atrocities that came from the Soviets. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/29/18285367/congress-disaster-relief-trump-puerto-rico https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/29/18285367/c... In the immediate aftermath, Trump repeatedly complained about how expensive it was to help the island, and said the hurricane wasn’t a “real catastrophe.” “If you look at the — every death is a horror, but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina and you look at the tremendous hundreds and hundreds of people that died and what happened here with a storm that was just totally overbearing. No one has ever seen anything like that. What is your death count?” he said during his visit after the hurricane.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      I don't think Chernobyl was nearly as bad as what's been told. That's my point. It can still be "one of the worst" without claiming thousands died. And I still think 64 is closer to the real death toll for Maria. It's certainly no where near 3000. People who have been through a hurricane know what it's like. You don't need to inflate your numbers to get sympathy. A body count based on "expected mortality rates" is by-definition, not a body count. "Which meant that in the first few weeks and deaths after the storm, doctors failed to record many deaths that were indirectly related to the storm..." They even admit that they're "indirect" deaths. Maria didn't kill those people. If people that died weeks later are being counted, that's absolutely wrong. You can be against Trump's policies, but no one can claim with a straight face that Puerto Rico wasn't at fault for the state of their infrastructure. Or empty bank accounts. The reporters needed a shock-value to try and get people in the US to care. It didn't work. (Also, vox isn't exactly a neutral source, even by mainstream standards.)

bb88 7y ago

> But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site. Agreed, but it's necessary if the government lies to you -- which of course was a frequent problem with the soviets. More recently, the Puerto Rico death toll for Hurricane Maria was just 64, and remained that way for a year. The only way it was eventually changed was proving (through statistical analysis) that the death toll was in fact higher.

beerandt 7y ago
Yea, I have a major problem with how they did that one also. That's not proof or causation, it's at most correlation. But there's no way to normalize for variable independence. If a 99 year old was on life support when the power went out and died a month earlier than they otherwise would have, that got counted. But Maria didn't kill that person. I get that this is somewhat debatable semantics, but it shouldn't be. And that's my point. There are really two sets of numbers that are being called the same thing when they clearly are not.
- bb88 7y ago
  The death toll stayed for a year at 64, making it look like there was no real human suffering. The US President used that as political cover for denying the funds for disaster relief. You can say "See, Chernobyl wasn't so bad. Nuclear power accidents aren't as bad as they say." Meanwhile the mismanagement of Chernobyl is still regarded as one of the greatest atrocities that came from the Soviets. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/29/18285367/congress-disaster-relief-trump-puerto-rico https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/29/18285367/c... In the immediate aftermath, Trump repeatedly complained about how expensive it was to help the island, and said the hurricane wasn’t a “real catastrophe.” “If you look at the — every death is a horror, but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina and you look at the tremendous hundreds and hundreds of people that died and what happened here with a storm that was just totally overbearing. No one has ever seen anything like that. What is your death count?” he said during his visit after the hurricane.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I don't think Chernobyl was nearly as bad as what's been told. That's my point. It can still be "one of the worst" without claiming thousands died. And I still think 64 is closer to the real death toll for Maria. It's certainly no where near 3000. People who have been through a hurricane know what it's like. You don't need to inflate your numbers to get sympathy. A body count based on "expected mortality rates" is by-definition, not a body count. "Which meant that in the first few weeks and deaths after the storm, doctors failed to record many deaths that were indirectly related to the storm..." They even admit that they're "indirect" deaths. Maria didn't kill those people. If people that died weeks later are being counted, that's absolutely wrong. You can be against Trump's policies, but no one can claim with a straight face that Puerto Rico wasn't at fault for the state of their infrastructure. Or empty bank accounts. The reporters needed a shock-value to try and get people in the US to care. It didn't work. (Also, vox isn't exactly a neutral source, even by mainstream standards.)