5 ms·

That statement about thousands of lives is not substantiated. “The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident caused the deaths, within a few days or weeks, of 30 workers

That statement about thousands of lives is not substantiated. “The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident caused the deaths, within a few days or weeks, of 30 workers and radiation injuries to hundreds of others. The accident caused the immediate evacuation of about 116 000 people and the permanent relocation of about 220 000 people. The accident caused social and psychological disruption, but apart from the 1800 thyroid cancers that have been reported in inidividuals exposed in childhood, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. No increase in overall cancer incidence or mortality has been observed that could be attributed to radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia does not appear to be raised, even among the hundreds of thousands of recovery workers sent to clean up the environmental contamination. Neither is there any scientific evidence of other non-malignant disorders associated with radiation exposure“ from the Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)73632-1/fulltext#%20 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

celticninja 6y ago
However it did leave a swathe of damaged and uninhabitable land.
- selectodude 6y ago
  Which is currently on fire and spewing radioactivity.
  - celticninja 6y ago
    I mean that's definitely wrong.
- cellular 6y ago
  I read that, because it is uninhabitable to humans, wild life is flourishing in that area! And forests are taking over!
  - PeCaN 6y ago
    Nuclear is the only power source that's good for the environment even when it fails disastrously :-P
  - acidburnNSA 6y ago
    Uninhabited by humans, not uninhabitable. Natural radiation in natural hot spots like Ramsar Iran are hotter than most parts of Chernobyl today, and no one there shows any increased cancer. Fear of low-dose radiation is the only reason why Chernobyl is still pretty empty today. The animals are doing just fine. They are no more radiation resistant than you or I. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclus...
save_ferris 6y ago
From the Lancet piece you linked to: > “I estimate that 10 000 people have already perished as a result of Chernobyl, and that is only about a third of the eventual death toll”, says Grodzinsky. “But, we are dealing with a very prolonged process which is spread through several generations and it's far too early to start saying we have worked it all out and now we can move on.” That statement was made by Dmytro Grodzinsky, chairman of the National Commission on Radiological Protection of the Population of Ukraine. That sounds like a relevant expert opinion to me.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Has the link changed? I can't find that quote. Regardless, when I combine "10 000" and "a very prolonged process which is spread through several generations" we are talking small change. We face extremely tolerable threats that kill more than 10 000 people spread through several generations; like ladders.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    That’s my bad, that quote from this Lancet article[0]. Is it a small change, though? That expert estimated 30k total deaths, which is almost half the American death toll in Vietnam, and where the US COVID will be around Wednesday or Thursday. When you’re talking tens of thousands of deaths over a completely preventable nuclear accident, which by the way, has created a permanent exclusion zone that is deemed uninhabitable. > like ladders 300 people die per year due to ladders in the US[1]. If you accept the Ukrainian expert’s estimation as at least plausible, then it would take 100 years for ladder deaths to equal his estimated Chernobyl death toll. All because one power-hungry chief engineer decided not to follow safety protocols, hardly seems like a fair comparison. One human was directly responsible for as many deaths that we’re comparing to 100 years worth of random ladder accidents? Regardless of the time-scale that is incredibly significant. 0: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)68559-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... 1: https://blog.ansi.org/2018/03/ladder-safety-priority-statistics-ali-ansi/ https://blog.ansi.org/2018/03/ladder-safety-priority-statist...

celticninja 6y ago

However it did leave a swathe of damaged and uninhabitable land.

selectodude 6y ago
Which is currently on fire and spewing radioactivity.
- celticninja 6y ago
  I mean that's definitely wrong.
cellular 6y ago
I read that, because it is uninhabitable to humans, wild life is flourishing in that area! And forests are taking over!
- PeCaN 6y ago
  Nuclear is the only power source that's good for the environment even when it fails disastrously :-P
- acidburnNSA 6y ago
  Uninhabited by humans, not uninhabitable. Natural radiation in natural hot spots like Ramsar Iran are hotter than most parts of Chernobyl today, and no one there shows any increased cancer. Fear of low-dose radiation is the only reason why Chernobyl is still pretty empty today. The animals are doing just fine. They are no more radiation resistant than you or I. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclus...

save_ferris 6y ago

From the Lancet piece you linked to: > “I estimate that 10 000 people have already perished as a result of Chernobyl, and that is only about a third of the eventual death toll”, says Grodzinsky. “But, we are dealing with a very prolonged process which is spread through several generations and it's far too early to start saying we have worked it all out and now we can move on.” That statement was made by Dmytro Grodzinsky, chairman of the National Commission on Radiological Protection of the Population of Ukraine. That sounds like a relevant expert opinion to me.

roenxi 6y ago
Has the link changed? I can't find that quote. Regardless, when I combine "10 000" and "a very prolonged process which is spread through several generations" we are talking small change. We face extremely tolerable threats that kill more than 10 000 people spread through several generations; like ladders.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  That’s my bad, that quote from this Lancet article[0]. Is it a small change, though? That expert estimated 30k total deaths, which is almost half the American death toll in Vietnam, and where the US COVID will be around Wednesday or Thursday. When you’re talking tens of thousands of deaths over a completely preventable nuclear accident, which by the way, has created a permanent exclusion zone that is deemed uninhabitable. > like ladders 300 people die per year due to ladders in the US[1]. If you accept the Ukrainian expert’s estimation as at least plausible, then it would take 100 years for ladder deaths to equal his estimated Chernobyl death toll. All because one power-hungry chief engineer decided not to follow safety protocols, hardly seems like a fair comparison. One human was directly responsible for as many deaths that we’re comparing to 100 years worth of random ladder accidents? Regardless of the time-scale that is incredibly significant. 0: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)68559-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... 1: https://blog.ansi.org/2018/03/ladder-safety-priority-statistics-ali-ansi/ https://blog.ansi.org/2018/03/ladder-safety-priority-statist...