5 ms·

It's really surprising that this and the Banqiao dam failure that killed 230,000 are fairly unknown to the west while Chernobyl is a household name, which kille

It's really surprising that this and the Banqiao dam failure that killed 230,000 are fairly unknown to the west while Chernobyl is a household name, which killed ~60 first responders and "up to 4000" from early cancer deaths (using conservative linear no threshold models of dose response) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

ckastner 7y ago
I also bring up that example quite frequently. I believe that is because conceptually, radiation is such a foreign concept to people. Who can blame them, they only hear it in the context of danger (for example, when getting an x-ray) or catastrophe (Chernobyl). But they'll happily eat a banana.
- adrianN 7y ago
  The difference is that a dam disaster is fairly localized in both time and space and the damage is visible. When your feet are dry you're safe. With radiation, the area is poisoned for generations and the danger is invisible. You don't know whether eating that mushroom will lead to a birth defect in your next child.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    That's probably part of it. Radiation is certainly a bit harder to detect with our human senses. Maybe if we put radiation detectors in every home and printed out XKCD dose effect charts people could make more risk-informed (as opposed to fear/uncertainty-informed) decisions. https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ Keep in mind that normal fossil fueled power plants are killing about 4.2 million people per year via air pollution, which is also largely invisible. I don't quite understand why radiation killing up to 4000 freaks people out so much more vs. air pollution killing 4.2 million/year. https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/ https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
ozmaverick72 7y ago
According to the HBO series on Chernobyl the Russians deliberately kept no statistics on radiation related illness and deaths related to the accident. They said estimates ranged from the number you quoted to upwards of 90 000 deaths. Thanks for telling us about the Banqiao dam failure I will read more about it.
- arethuza 7y ago
  Nitpicks: the Soviets rather than the Russians - Chernobyl is in Ukraine after all. Mind you, I wonder if anyone actually explicitly decided not to collect the relevant statistics or whether facts like that were simply ignored by Soviet statisticians if they thought they might give "wrong" answer - there being some history in that area with Stalin and statisticians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937)
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    tl;dr the census accurately counted a deficit of millions of people, so the census takers were executed. There is no telling how many of the "before" count had existed, as previous counts were systematically inflated.
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      Fortunately we have dose maps from Chernobyl and have a rough understanding of biological damage vs. dose. Using conservative models, plus the medical records and interviews (WHO and UN got excellent access a few years after Chernobyl happened), we can build pretty good understandings even if census data was questionable. This was accounted for by UNSCEAR, who says "Up to 4000 may die early from Chernobyl" [1] [1] https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
      - ncmncm 7y ago
        Chernobyl did not have a reactor in 1937...
zelos 7y ago
Bhopal was a major case study in the Safety course in my UK Chemical Engineering degree, so at least the lessons learned are taught in the West.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Oh yeah, in industrial circles it's very well known. Just not in the public at large or pop culture.
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  If I understand correctly, the Bhopal disaster was the result of irresponsible cost-cutting throughout upper management. It's not enough that the engineers know what they're doing, if it's a clueless MBA making the policy decisions, no? Especially when they're chasing a bonus, and know they have full legal immunity if they kill people.
_zamorano_ 7y ago
It´s not. The USSR was responsible for Chernobyl disaster and with the cold war still running, it was a candy for the western media. In case of the Bhopal disaster, an american owned company was to blame and happened in a non threathening third world country. No news for western media.
- andreskytt 7y ago
  The case is well documented in relevant literature. For example, the System Safety books by Nancy Leveson
cwmma 7y ago
disasters in china tend to operate at just a whole different scale then ones in the west, like take the Taiping Rebellion, by some counts the 2nd deadliest modern war and it's not very well known in the west.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  But Chernobyl was in the Soviet Union. This was considered not the west, right?
  - cwmma 7y ago
    I was suggesting why the Chinese disasters may have gotten less play in the west
shalmanese 7y ago
Similarly, we have paid much more attention to the ~10s of deaths from the Fukushima nuclear disaster but somehow conveniently ignore the ~20,000 deaths from the tsunami that caused the disaster.

ckastner 7y ago

I also bring up that example quite frequently. I believe that is because conceptually, radiation is such a foreign concept to people. Who can blame them, they only hear it in the context of danger (for example, when getting an x-ray) or catastrophe (Chernobyl). But they'll happily eat a banana.

adrianN 7y ago
The difference is that a dam disaster is fairly localized in both time and space and the damage is visible. When your feet are dry you're safe. With radiation, the area is poisoned for generations and the danger is invisible. You don't know whether eating that mushroom will lead to a birth defect in your next child.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  That's probably part of it. Radiation is certainly a bit harder to detect with our human senses. Maybe if we put radiation detectors in every home and printed out XKCD dose effect charts people could make more risk-informed (as opposed to fear/uncertainty-informed) decisions. https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ Keep in mind that normal fossil fueled power plants are killing about 4.2 million people per year via air pollution, which is also largely invisible. I don't quite understand why radiation killing up to 4000 freaks people out so much more vs. air pollution killing 4.2 million/year. https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/ https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/

ozmaverick72 7y ago

According to the HBO series on Chernobyl the Russians deliberately kept no statistics on radiation related illness and deaths related to the accident. They said estimates ranged from the number you quoted to upwards of 90 000 deaths. Thanks for telling us about the Banqiao dam failure I will read more about it.

arethuza 7y ago
Nitpicks: the Soviets rather than the Russians - Chernobyl is in Ukraine after all. Mind you, I wonder if anyone actually explicitly decided not to collect the relevant statistics or whether facts like that were simply ignored by Soviet statisticians if they thought they might give "wrong" answer - there being some history in that area with Stalin and statisticians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937)
- ncmncm 7y ago
  tl;dr the census accurately counted a deficit of millions of people, so the census takers were executed. There is no telling how many of the "before" count had existed, as previous counts were systematically inflated.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Fortunately we have dose maps from Chernobyl and have a rough understanding of biological damage vs. dose. Using conservative models, plus the medical records and interviews (WHO and UN got excellent access a few years after Chernobyl happened), we can build pretty good understandings even if census data was questionable. This was accounted for by UNSCEAR, who says "Up to 4000 may die early from Chernobyl" [1] [1] https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      Chernobyl did not have a reactor in 1937...

zelos 7y ago

Bhopal was a major case study in the Safety course in my UK Chemical Engineering degree, so at least the lessons learned are taught in the West.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Oh yeah, in industrial circles it's very well known. Just not in the public at large or pop culture.
MaxBarraclough 7y ago
If I understand correctly, the Bhopal disaster was the result of irresponsible cost-cutting throughout upper management. It's not enough that the engineers know what they're doing, if it's a clueless MBA making the policy decisions, no? Especially when they're chasing a bonus, and know they have full legal immunity if they kill people.

_zamorano_ 7y ago

It´s not. The USSR was responsible for Chernobyl disaster and with the cold war still running, it was a candy for the western media. In case of the Bhopal disaster, an american owned company was to blame and happened in a non threathening third world country. No news for western media.

andreskytt 7y ago
The case is well documented in relevant literature. For example, the System Safety books by Nancy Leveson

cwmma 7y ago

disasters in china tend to operate at just a whole different scale then ones in the west, like take the Taiping Rebellion, by some counts the 2nd deadliest modern war and it's not very well known in the west.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
But Chernobyl was in the Soviet Union. This was considered not the west, right?
- cwmma 7y ago
  I was suggesting why the Chinese disasters may have gotten less play in the west

shalmanese 7y ago

Similarly, we have paid much more attention to the ~10s of deaths from the Fukushima nuclear disaster but somehow conveniently ignore the ~20,000 deaths from the tsunami that caused the disaster.