4 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt 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 agoAnd 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 agoHang 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 agoCountless as in "we don't have the ability to accurately count" ... "immeasurable" would have been more accurate.
- innes 16y agoSorry, that's a misuse of countless, which means immeasurable in the sense of being too many to count.