5 ms·

Having grown up in Russia and personally being in contact with a few people affected by the Chernobyl fallout, it's a bit hard to take someone who tries to dimi

Having grown up in Russia and personally being in contact with a few people affected by the Chernobyl fallout, it's a bit hard to take someone who tries to diminish the impact of that accident to this degree. Yes, maybe the UN report showed such a small number of confirmed fatalities, but I have a sneaky suspicion that they based it mostly on data collected by the Soviet Union. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust any data that came from an authoritarian government, especially one run by a bunch of Russians, especially one that collapsed 20 years ago (likely destroying countless incriminating documents in the process), especially concerning a deeply embarrassing incident such as Chernobyl. The public may be overreacting to the nuclear threat posed by the Fukushima reactors, but this seems like a subtle attempt at rewriting history. (I wouldn't be surprised if there is a UN report 20 years from now proving that Saddam Hussein did indeed win re-election with 99% of the vote.)

daeken 16y ago
Have you seen the actual numbers of this, and seen them put into perspective? I'd strongly recommend looking at http://xkcd.org/radiation/ http://xkcd.org/radiation/ -- he puts the data into an easy to relate to format.
- waterlesscloud 16y ago
  The biggest problem with that chart is that it mixes different time scales, which it only indicates in the text, not in the visual comparisons. Take one of the ones that measures an hour's exposure and multiply it by 24. Or a day and multiply it by 365. Suddenly the visual comparisons look much, much different.
  - daeken 16y ago
    Yeah, this was one of my big complaints with that. However, it's not prevalent enough to disregard it. It's by no means scientific, but I think it gives a good high level orders-of-magnitude view, largely.
  - stuhood 16y ago
    As mentioned in the BBC article though, doing that kind of math does not lead to an accurate result, due to the fact that your body is constantly healing. It's the bursts of radiation that are most damaging.
- dkersten 16y ago
  I would hardly count xkcd as a scientifically factual comic. Besides, as waterlesscloud said, he mixes up timescales (or in some cases uses simply uSv's, which, I hear, makes no sense without a timescale. Ie 5 uSv = wrong, 5 uSv/hour = ok).
  - daeken 16y ago
    In this case, he gives sources for all his data. And while he does mix up timescales, he's really not far off. It can be better, but it's not bad.
    - dkersten 16y ago
      In that case, what were you referring to when posting the chart: Fukushima or Chernobyl? If Chernobyl, the article mentions only a small number of fatalities, but I've read in many places over the years that thousands of people (especially in Belarus, who got the worst of it) have since died from cancer and other radiation induced diseases. I've also seen documentaries about the many sick and deformed children that were born since, because of their parents high exposure to radiation. Finally, when I was growing up, I saw many affected children first hand, as a lot of families in my school at the time would host children affected by the accident during the summer. If you were referring to Fukushima, I agree that it doesn't come close to Chernobyl (that we know of, at least), but the linked article makes Chernobyl sound "not that bad" too, which I cannot agree with.
      - daeken 16y ago
        Fukushima -- Chernobyl, I believe, was misrepresented there. However, it's misrepresented everywhere.
        dkersten 16y ago
        Ah, we are in agreement then.
- callmevlad 16y ago
  Yes, I mostly understand the scale of radiation we're currently dealing with in Japan, and it's mostly on the "safer" side. However, my issue is with taking an accident that deformed countless children, caused countless cases of cancer, and in general completely devastated the lives of (hundreds of) thousands of people - and essentially using it in a "How I Stopped Worrying and Love the Bomb" argument to get people to calm down. Yes, there is a level of overreaction any time a nuclear accident takes place (Japan, TMI come to mind), but I wish people wouldn't gloss over the suffering of so many people in order to make their point.
  - ckuehne 16y ago
    It was a great tragedy. But neither was the the number of deformed children nor the number of cases of cancer "countless". There have been put numbers on it [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_the_disaster.27s_effects_on_human_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_th...
    - moe 16y ago
      And which number is the right one? According to your link: - UNSCEAR claims 6000 cases of cancer. - IAEA claims 4000 deaths - Greenpeace claims 200,000 deaths - IPPNW claims 10,000 - 50,000 cases of cancer - New York Academy of Sciences claims 985,000 deaths
  - innes 16y ago
    Hang on, chernobyl deformed countless children? Countless as in "too many to count", or faultless as in "i can't help indulging in hyperbole".
    - callmevlad 16y ago
      Countless as in "we don't have the ability to accurately count" ... "immeasurable" would have been more accurate.
      - 16y ago
dkersten 16y ago
Not to mention that they covered up the Chernobyl accident for I can't remember how many days before even bothering to tell the locals that they're in danger. In the nineties, families in the country around where I grew up, here in Ireland, hosted children from Chernobyl every summer, so that they could breath clean air and eat clean food. I've also seen documentaries about birth defects in the years after the accident. Perhaps there weren't too many fatalities, but a lot of lives were very badly affected by the radiation and a lot more people died due to slow, radiation induced diseases. For example, in the reports, how many people who died of cancer or other diseases since were counted? So, I agree with you - downplaying the dangers of radiation is careless and playing with peoples lives.
- die_sekte 16y ago
  IIRC Pripyat was evacuated 36 hours later.
  - dkersten 16y ago
    Ah, I think you're right. Still, 36 hours in a very high radiation environment is a very long time. also, I'm not sure how long the people in Chernobyl itself were there before being told something was wrong. Hell, the soviet union didn't admit anything was wrong until a couple of days after, when the radiation was noticed by engineers in Sweden[1]. [1] http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/chernobyl/230pm/index2.html http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/chernobyl/230pm/index2.html
- daeken 16y ago
  A good friend's wife spent a good bit of time in Belarus recently (well, 2006-2007), primarily assisting children still affected by the Chernobyl disaster. The stories she told of kids powering through cancer would reduce most men to tears. Really amazing what's still going on over there, to this day. The incident at Chernobyl might have occurred in the Ukraine, but it was not the most affected. Sad, even if I am a highly pro-nuclear guy.
  - dkersten 16y ago

daeken 16y ago

Have you seen the actual numbers of this, and seen them put into perspective? I'd strongly recommend looking at http://xkcd.org/radiation/ http://xkcd.org/radiation/ -- he puts the data into an easy to relate to format.

waterlesscloud 16y ago
The biggest problem with that chart is that it mixes different time scales, which it only indicates in the text, not in the visual comparisons. Take one of the ones that measures an hour's exposure and multiply it by 24. Or a day and multiply it by 365. Suddenly the visual comparisons look much, much different.
- daeken 16y ago
  Yeah, this was one of my big complaints with that. However, it's not prevalent enough to disregard it. It's by no means scientific, but I think it gives a good high level orders-of-magnitude view, largely.
- stuhood 16y ago
  As mentioned in the BBC article though, doing that kind of math does not lead to an accurate result, due to the fact that your body is constantly healing. It's the bursts of radiation that are most damaging.
dkersten 16y ago
I would hardly count xkcd as a scientifically factual comic. Besides, as waterlesscloud said, he mixes up timescales (or in some cases uses simply uSv's, which, I hear, makes no sense without a timescale. Ie 5 uSv = wrong, 5 uSv/hour = ok).
- daeken 16y ago
  In this case, he gives sources for all his data. And while he does mix up timescales, he's really not far off. It can be better, but it's not bad.
  - dkersten 16y ago
    In that case, what were you referring to when posting the chart: Fukushima or Chernobyl? If Chernobyl, the article mentions only a small number of fatalities, but I've read in many places over the years that thousands of people (especially in Belarus, who got the worst of it) have since died from cancer and other radiation induced diseases. I've also seen documentaries about the many sick and deformed children that were born since, because of their parents high exposure to radiation. Finally, when I was growing up, I saw many affected children first hand, as a lot of families in my school at the time would host children affected by the accident during the summer. If you were referring to Fukushima, I agree that it doesn't come close to Chernobyl (that we know of, at least), but the linked article makes Chernobyl sound "not that bad" too, which I cannot agree with.
    - daeken 16y ago
      Fukushima -- Chernobyl, I believe, was misrepresented there. However, it's misrepresented everywhere.
      - dkersten 16y ago
        Ah, we are in agreement then.
callmevlad 16y ago
Yes, I mostly understand the scale of radiation we're currently dealing with in Japan, and it's mostly on the "safer" side. However, my issue is with taking an accident that deformed countless children, caused countless cases of cancer, and in general completely devastated the lives of (hundreds of) thousands of people - and essentially using it in a "How I Stopped Worrying and Love the Bomb" argument to get people to calm down. Yes, there is a level of overreaction any time a nuclear accident takes place (Japan, TMI come to mind), but I wish people wouldn't gloss over the suffering of so many people in order to make their point.
- ckuehne 16y ago
  It was a great tragedy. But neither was the the number of deformed children nor the number of cases of cancer "countless". There have been put numbers on it [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_the_disaster.27s_effects_on_human_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_th...
  - moe 16y ago
    And which number is the right one? According to your link: - UNSCEAR claims 6000 cases of cancer. - IAEA claims 4000 deaths - Greenpeace claims 200,000 deaths - IPPNW claims 10,000 - 50,000 cases of cancer - New York Academy of Sciences claims 985,000 deaths
- innes 16y ago
  Hang on, chernobyl deformed countless children? Countless as in "too many to count", or faultless as in "i can't help indulging in hyperbole".
  - callmevlad 16y ago
    Countless as in "we don't have the ability to accurately count" ... "immeasurable" would have been more accurate.
    - 16y ago

dkersten 16y ago

Not to mention that they covered up the Chernobyl accident for I can't remember how many days before even bothering to tell the locals that they're in danger. In the nineties, families in the country around where I grew up, here in Ireland, hosted children from Chernobyl every summer, so that they could breath clean air and eat clean food. I've also seen documentaries about birth defects in the years after the accident. Perhaps there weren't too many fatalities, but a lot of lives were very badly affected by the radiation and a lot more people died due to slow, radiation induced diseases. For example, in the reports, how many people who died of cancer or other diseases since were counted? So, I agree with you - downplaying the dangers of radiation is careless and playing with peoples lives.

die_sekte 16y ago
IIRC Pripyat was evacuated 36 hours later.
- dkersten 16y ago
  Ah, I think you're right. Still, 36 hours in a very high radiation environment is a very long time. also, I'm not sure how long the people in Chernobyl itself were there before being told something was wrong. Hell, the soviet union didn't admit anything was wrong until a couple of days after, when the radiation was noticed by engineers in Sweden[1]. [1] http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/chernobyl/230pm/index2.html http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/chernobyl/230pm/index2.html
daeken 16y ago
A good friend's wife spent a good bit of time in Belarus recently (well, 2006-2007), primarily assisting children still affected by the Chernobyl disaster. The stories she told of kids powering through cancer would reduce most men to tears. Really amazing what's still going on over there, to this day. The incident at Chernobyl might have occurred in the Ukraine, but it was not the most affected. Sad, even if I am a highly pro-nuclear guy.
- dkersten 16y ago