24 ms·

The figure of 1 million is given by Greenpeace which is not regarded to be even remotely authoritative. Even the figure of 6,000 is disputed. The WHO produced a

The figure of 1 million is given by Greenpeace which is not regarded to be even remotely authoritative. Even the figure of 6,000 is disputed. The WHO produced a figure of 4,000 [1]. In particular these estimates were projections about future cancer rates and similar illnesses. Now that we've actually advanced the clock 35 years we can make meaningful examinations of the affected population. As of 2005, less than 50 deaths due to illnesses attributed to radiation pollution from the Chernobyl disaster were recorded. Furthermore, even if the worst-case figures in the ranges of the tens of thousands are taken as fact nuclear is still the safest forms of energy production. 1. https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
> As of 2005, less than 50 deaths due to illnesses attributed to radiation pollution from the Chernobyl disaster were recorded. The word "recorded" does a huge amount of obscuring work in that sentence. I thoroughly recommend the book "Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster" by Svetlana Alexievich. After reading that, a double or triple digit number is simply not credible.
- manfredo 7y ago
  So an oral history book written by a private author is more credible than the work of health experts?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
    And by making that statement, you show yourself to be ignorant of the contents of the book.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      The book consists of interviews with people who experienced the events. It's oral history, it even says so explicitly in the title. You have yet to address question: why is an oral history compiled by someone with a vested interest in selling copies of her book more (and thus, an incentive to produce a more sensational narrative) more authoritative than the multiple studies conducted by experts in radioactive contamination and it's health effects? And from what I've been able to determine, this book is responsible for several fabrications promulgated by HBO's Chernobyl, which used this book as one of it's main sources. Among others, the "bridge of death" where supposedly everyone who watched the reactor fire from said bridge died from contamination. In reality, people who were on that bridge are still alive today, and have even been interviewed. Oral history is notoriously unreliable for events steeped in folklore like Chernobyl.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
        > why is an oral history compiled by someone with a vested interest in selling copies of her book more (and thus, an incentive to produce a more sensational narrative) more authoritative than the multiple studies conducted by experts Some of the people interviewed were experts, on the ground. Much of it talks about how much the "official story" omits. How the "authoritative" version isn't. Which was standard Soviet practice. Since you accuse the author (1) of "vested interests", well they cut both ways. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlana_Alexievich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlana_Alexievich
        manfredo 7y ago
        The Soviets weren't the ones conducting the studies I'm talking about. The Chernobyl incident was one of thr most studied industrial disasters of all time, and many Western organizations also studied the disasters and Drew up estimates of the impact. The 6,000 figure I cited above doesn't come from the Soviets Union, it comes from the World Health Organization. If your reason for trusting on oral history from a private author is distrust incth Soviet Union, you still have to address why this book is more trustworthy than the multitude of of Western studies of the disaster.

SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago

> As of 2005, less than 50 deaths due to illnesses attributed to radiation pollution from the Chernobyl disaster were recorded. The word "recorded" does a huge amount of obscuring work in that sentence. I thoroughly recommend the book "Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster" by Svetlana Alexievich. After reading that, a double or triple digit number is simply not credible.

manfredo 7y ago
So an oral history book written by a private author is more credible than the work of health experts?
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
  And by making that statement, you show yourself to be ignorant of the contents of the book.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    The book consists of interviews with people who experienced the events. It's oral history, it even says so explicitly in the title. You have yet to address question: why is an oral history compiled by someone with a vested interest in selling copies of her book more (and thus, an incentive to produce a more sensational narrative) more authoritative than the multiple studies conducted by experts in radioactive contamination and it's health effects? And from what I've been able to determine, this book is responsible for several fabrications promulgated by HBO's Chernobyl, which used this book as one of it's main sources. Among others, the "bridge of death" where supposedly everyone who watched the reactor fire from said bridge died from contamination. In reality, people who were on that bridge are still alive today, and have even been interviewed. Oral history is notoriously unreliable for events steeped in folklore like Chernobyl.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
      > why is an oral history compiled by someone with a vested interest in selling copies of her book more (and thus, an incentive to produce a more sensational narrative) more authoritative than the multiple studies conducted by experts Some of the people interviewed were experts, on the ground. Much of it talks about how much the "official story" omits. How the "authoritative" version isn't. Which was standard Soviet practice. Since you accuse the author (1) of "vested interests", well they cut both ways. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlana_Alexievich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetlana_Alexievich
      - manfredo 7y ago
        The Soviets weren't the ones conducting the studies I'm talking about. The Chernobyl incident was one of thr most studied industrial disasters of all time, and many Western organizations also studied the disasters and Drew up estimates of the impact. The 6,000 figure I cited above doesn't come from the Soviets Union, it comes from the World Health Organization. If your reason for trusting on oral history from a private author is distrust incth Soviet Union, you still have to address why this book is more trustworthy than the multitude of of Western studies of the disaster.