3 ms·

So an oral history book written by a private author is more credible than the work of health experts?

by manfredo 7y ago

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.

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.