5 ms·

I watched a documentary about Chernobyl yesterday (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o) an although it's obvio

by BvS 16y ago

I watched a documentary about Chernobyl yesterday (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o) an although it's obviously a little sensationalist/emotional I have a really hard time having any respect for people claiming it didn't have that much impact. Fukushima is very different but I agree with others that we should wait at least a couple of weeks till we make any conclusions Speaking of jumping to conclusions: Germany just started to shut down 7 nuclear power plants because of Fukushima...

dublinclontarf 16y ago
Chernobyl wasn't as bad as has been made out to be. In total around 50 deaths are directly attributable to radiation exposure(firemen and resue workers). 4'000 children contracted thyroid cancer as a result but with nearly a 99% recovery rate. In terms of cancers or birth defects there have been no increases over the average in effected areas. Seriously, study after study by various international organisations have come to the same conclusion. See these links for the reports. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326129 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326129 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326672 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326672
- Tichy 16y ago
  And for years strawberries, mushrooms and deer were off limits on the food table. Sure maybe that pales compared to actual deaths, but it didn't help to endear nuclear power to my heart. Of course other power sources pollute the environment, too, but they can be improved as well, for example by installing better filters.
  - chokma 16y ago
    > And for years strawberries, mushrooms and deer were off limits on the food table. There are still areas in Germany were wild pigs have to be tested for radioactivity, as some of them are too fond of radioactive mushrooms. (lang=de: http://www.zeit.de/2010/46/U-Strahlende-Wildschweine?page=all http://www.zeit.de/2010/46/U-Strahlende-Wildschweine?page=al... )
- BvS 16y ago
  Thanks for the links. One could obviously argue about the term "much impact". Having cancer ia a pretty bad experience even if you survive. Same with abandoning your hometown etc. Nevertheless the outcome of Chernobyl seems to be far less dramatic than most people believe. At least if this study by Greenpeace is wrong (estimating almost 100,000 deaths): http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/chernobyl-deaths-180406/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/che...
- moe 16y ago
  In total around 50 deaths are directly attributable to radiation I wonder how you can claim that when, depending on who you ask, the figure varies between 50, 50000 and "hundreds of thousands". The figures you cite are from IAEA, which arguably is quite a biased source. Let's also not forget that it's very difficult to track and correlate the health of >600k people over 20+ years - even if you try to do it in best honesty. As a counter-point, here's a study[1] that claims ~1 million deaths and according to wikipedia: "draws on previously classified post-Soviet records and reports by Eastern European scientists and medical experts that have largely been ignored by the IAEA and UNSCEAR". I haven't read it, it may be fear mongering material. But then again, if really only 4050 people were affected, why is everyone making such a big deal about it? [1] http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1 http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3...
  - dublinclontarf 16y ago
    >I haven't read it, it may be fear mongering material. But then again, if really only 4050 people were affected, why is everyone making such a big deal about it? They're making a big deal for 2 reasons. First it WAS a big deal. What happened is nothing to sniff at. So making a big deal over Chernobyl is no problem. Second, the problem is that the anti-nuclear movement is trying to make people believe that it was much worse than it was, in an attempt to use irrational fear to bolster resistance against nuclear. These are people who have no problem with lies, to them the end justifies the means, they will do anything they can, including breaking laws to stop nuclear power. I've seen this in Ireland not only with nuclear but with the building of a gas plant, a small group of radicals broke into the facility numerous times doing whatever damage they could. And this was just for gas.
    - moe 16y ago
      First it WAS a big deal. What happened is nothing to sniff at. Sorry, but I think you're contradicting yourself here. First you say 4050 people affected and totaling "only" 90 deaths is not a big deal (which I would agree with) - and now you say the opposite? If it was commonly agreed that the number of casualties was that low then I really don't get why even the pro-nuclear parties refer to it as the dramatic event that is to be avoided at all costs. Your average earthquake affects and kills more people than that... Second, the problem is that the anti-nuclear movement [...] in an attempt to use irrational fear to bolster resistance against nuclear I keep hearing that, but I'm really wondering what are the motivations here? Yes, there are some environmental nut-jobs who will argue for the sake of it, but those are usually easy to spot. However, on top of that there is also a non-negligible number of more or less credible scientists and first-hand witnesses (doctors, nurses) who question the figure of ~4000 affected. When I see an interview with a nurse on TV who reports about entire villages in the area dying out because they can't make children without birth-defects, then I can't help but ask: Why should she make this up? Who is paying her to tell us lies? And then, on the other side of the spectrum, we have a multi-billion dollar industry and entire countries depending on the perception that nuke plants are "safe enough". I'm not claiming to have the definite answer. I just don't understand where people like you are taking their confidence from.
gritzko 16y ago
> Speaking of jumping to conclusions: Germany just started to shut down 7 nuclear power plants because of Fukushima... 100% pure green hysteria. ~10.000 died because of the tsunami. Who died because of Fukushima? None so far.
- TorbjornLunde 16y ago
  We can control whether we use nuclear power or not. Controlling nature is a little harder. (Though I agree that shutting down power plants in Germany right now is illogical.)
- khafra 16y ago
  The hysterics don't turn green until they're actually exposed to toxic waste. I think this is plain old hysteria; many environmentalists are all about nuclear power because the alternatives are coal, oil, or hunter/gatherer at 1/1000th the world's current population.
  - holri 16y ago
    The alternative is to save energy. There is still much to gain with advanced technology. For example we drive all day with vehicels that have an overall efficiency factor of 3%. Huge waste is going on. It's a shame.
    - khafra 16y ago
      If there were ways to save large amounts while maintaining economic output, people would be doing them and making massive amounts of money from the savings. There are ways to achieve a mean world GDP, or at least a standard of living similar to ours at a much lower rate of single-use resource consumption, but we're at a local optima. Civilization is a greedy search algorithm.
      - holri 16y ago
        It's a matter of price. Labour ist very expensive and high taxed. Therefore you can get rich by developing technology saving labour. On the other hand energy is cheap, so there is no economical incentive to save energy. Image an opposite pricing. I bet we would have carbon cars weighing 300 kg and with 1l/km fuel consumption. Technologically possible today but not economically.
woodson 16y ago
> Speaking of jumping to conclusions: Germany just started to shut down 7 nuclear power plants because of Fukushima... Not because of Fukushima, but pending elections..

by BvS 16y ago

dublinclontarf 16y ago

Chernobyl wasn't as bad as has been made out to be. In total around 50 deaths are directly attributable to radiation exposure(firemen and resue workers). 4'000 children contracted thyroid cancer as a result but with nearly a 99% recovery rate. In terms of cancers or birth defects there have been no increases over the average in effected areas. Seriously, study after study by various international organisations have come to the same conclusion. See these links for the reports. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326129 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326129 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326672 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326672

Tichy 16y ago
And for years strawberries, mushrooms and deer were off limits on the food table. Sure maybe that pales compared to actual deaths, but it didn't help to endear nuclear power to my heart. Of course other power sources pollute the environment, too, but they can be improved as well, for example by installing better filters.
- chokma 16y ago
  > And for years strawberries, mushrooms and deer were off limits on the food table. There are still areas in Germany were wild pigs have to be tested for radioactivity, as some of them are too fond of radioactive mushrooms. (lang=de: http://www.zeit.de/2010/46/U-Strahlende-Wildschweine?page=all http://www.zeit.de/2010/46/U-Strahlende-Wildschweine?page=al... )
BvS 16y ago
Thanks for the links. One could obviously argue about the term "much impact". Having cancer ia a pretty bad experience even if you survive. Same with abandoning your hometown etc. Nevertheless the outcome of Chernobyl seems to be far less dramatic than most people believe. At least if this study by Greenpeace is wrong (estimating almost 100,000 deaths): http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/chernobyl-deaths-180406/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/che...
moe 16y ago
In total around 50 deaths are directly attributable to radiation I wonder how you can claim that when, depending on who you ask, the figure varies between 50, 50000 and "hundreds of thousands". The figures you cite are from IAEA, which arguably is quite a biased source. Let's also not forget that it's very difficult to track and correlate the health of >600k people over 20+ years - even if you try to do it in best honesty. As a counter-point, here's a study[1] that claims ~1 million deaths and according to wikipedia: "draws on previously classified post-Soviet records and reports by Eastern European scientists and medical experts that have largely been ignored by the IAEA and UNSCEAR". I haven't read it, it may be fear mongering material. But then again, if really only 4050 people were affected, why is everyone making such a big deal about it? [1] http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1 http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3...
- dublinclontarf 16y ago
  >I haven't read it, it may be fear mongering material. But then again, if really only 4050 people were affected, why is everyone making such a big deal about it? They're making a big deal for 2 reasons. First it WAS a big deal. What happened is nothing to sniff at. So making a big deal over Chernobyl is no problem. Second, the problem is that the anti-nuclear movement is trying to make people believe that it was much worse than it was, in an attempt to use irrational fear to bolster resistance against nuclear. These are people who have no problem with lies, to them the end justifies the means, they will do anything they can, including breaking laws to stop nuclear power. I've seen this in Ireland not only with nuclear but with the building of a gas plant, a small group of radicals broke into the facility numerous times doing whatever damage they could. And this was just for gas.
  - moe 16y ago
    First it WAS a big deal. What happened is nothing to sniff at. Sorry, but I think you're contradicting yourself here. First you say 4050 people affected and totaling "only" 90 deaths is not a big deal (which I would agree with) - and now you say the opposite? If it was commonly agreed that the number of casualties was that low then I really don't get why even the pro-nuclear parties refer to it as the dramatic event that is to be avoided at all costs. Your average earthquake affects and kills more people than that... Second, the problem is that the anti-nuclear movement [...] in an attempt to use irrational fear to bolster resistance against nuclear I keep hearing that, but I'm really wondering what are the motivations here? Yes, there are some environmental nut-jobs who will argue for the sake of it, but those are usually easy to spot. However, on top of that there is also a non-negligible number of more or less credible scientists and first-hand witnesses (doctors, nurses) who question the figure of ~4000 affected. When I see an interview with a nurse on TV who reports about entire villages in the area dying out because they can't make children without birth-defects, then I can't help but ask: Why should she make this up? Who is paying her to tell us lies? And then, on the other side of the spectrum, we have a multi-billion dollar industry and entire countries depending on the perception that nuke plants are "safe enough". I'm not claiming to have the definite answer. I just don't understand where people like you are taking their confidence from.

gritzko 16y ago

> Speaking of jumping to conclusions: Germany just started to shut down 7 nuclear power plants because of Fukushima... 100% pure green hysteria. ~10.000 died because of the tsunami. Who died because of Fukushima? None so far.

TorbjornLunde 16y ago
We can control whether we use nuclear power or not. Controlling nature is a little harder. (Though I agree that shutting down power plants in Germany right now is illogical.)
khafra 16y ago
The hysterics don't turn green until they're actually exposed to toxic waste. I think this is plain old hysteria; many environmentalists are all about nuclear power because the alternatives are coal, oil, or hunter/gatherer at 1/1000th the world's current population.
- holri 16y ago
  The alternative is to save energy. There is still much to gain with advanced technology. For example we drive all day with vehicels that have an overall efficiency factor of 3%. Huge waste is going on. It's a shame.
  - khafra 16y ago
    If there were ways to save large amounts while maintaining economic output, people would be doing them and making massive amounts of money from the savings. There are ways to achieve a mean world GDP, or at least a standard of living similar to ours at a much lower rate of single-use resource consumption, but we're at a local optima. Civilization is a greedy search algorithm.
    - holri 16y ago
      It's a matter of price. Labour ist very expensive and high taxed. Therefore you can get rich by developing technology saving labour. On the other hand energy is cheap, so there is no economical incentive to save energy. Image an opposite pricing. I bet we would have carbon cars weighing 300 kg and with 1l/km fuel consumption. Technologically possible today but not economically.

woodson 16y ago

> Speaking of jumping to conclusions: Germany just started to shut down 7 nuclear power plants because of Fukushima... Not because of Fukushima, but pending elections..