4 ms·

Chernobyl's Tragic Legacy

9 points by jshen 16y ago

ronnier 16y ago
A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008
- cantbecool 16y ago
  Probably because they would not know where to start if they had to count genetic deformaties, cancer, and other psychological and physical defects. It is a mess all around.
- jshen 16y ago
  why cherry pick one report?
- srean 16y ago
  To add some perspective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster This is not to belittle Chernobyl. But to provoke thought and discussion on why a disaster of this scale has such a negligible mind-share.
- callmevlad 16y ago
  Key word there is confirmed. Don't forget this happened in Soviet Ukraine, and the USSR collapsed shortly thereafter, undoubtedly destroying large amounts of records with it. Besides, this essay seems to focus on the debilitating effect of life after radiation, not necessarily deaths that can be directly attributed to the Chernobyl event.
- jshen 16y ago
  "But other reputable scientists researching the most radiation-contaminated areas of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are not convinced. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far."
saulrh 16y ago
Wish I could downvote this. Single cases, no matter how tragic, do not make a sweeping condemnation. Do we stop selling cars because a million people a year get in car accidents and die messily? No. Should we stop building nuclear power plants because, thirty years ago, some idiots built a really, really terrible one and a few thousand people died messily? No. And, yes, I know that I'm going to get flamed for this. Go ahead. It needs to be said. If we want our species to survive the next hundred years, we need to get our heads out of our emotional rear ends.
- jshen 16y ago
  I don't disagree, and I wasn't trying to imply that we shouldn't use nuclear power by submitting this link. But, I think we should take a hard look in the mirror and ask ourselves how much energy we waste. Most of us treat electricity like it's free and infinite, and what I want to take away from this is that we should really be more responsible with our energy use because there are consequences.
- cantbecool 16y ago
  I understand your logic, but just remember, "all machines do eventually break down."
  - saulrh 16y ago
    True. Banqaio dam, for example, or the USS Grandcamp in Texas City, or Deepwater Horizon. Nuclear breaks down, and when it does it causes some pretty horrific injuries, but other things break down with far greater frequency and with far more deadly (albeit less media-exploitable) consequences.
- callmevlad 16y ago
  Wish I could downvote this. Just because we need nuclear energy to survive, doesn't mean you need to demote this massive and tragic accident to a statistical blip made up of "single cases".
  - breathesalt 16y ago
callmevlad 16y ago
Relevant conversation on a previous thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2374194 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2374194

9 points by jshen 16y ago

ronnier 16y ago

A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008

cantbecool 16y ago
Probably because they would not know where to start if they had to count genetic deformaties, cancer, and other psychological and physical defects. It is a mess all around.
jshen 16y ago
why cherry pick one report?
srean 16y ago
To add some perspective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster This is not to belittle Chernobyl. But to provoke thought and discussion on why a disaster of this scale has such a negligible mind-share.
callmevlad 16y ago
Key word there is confirmed. Don't forget this happened in Soviet Ukraine, and the USSR collapsed shortly thereafter, undoubtedly destroying large amounts of records with it. Besides, this essay seems to focus on the debilitating effect of life after radiation, not necessarily deaths that can be directly attributed to the Chernobyl event.
jshen 16y ago
"But other reputable scientists researching the most radiation-contaminated areas of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are not convinced. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far."

saulrh 16y ago

Wish I could downvote this. Single cases, no matter how tragic, do not make a sweeping condemnation. Do we stop selling cars because a million people a year get in car accidents and die messily? No. Should we stop building nuclear power plants because, thirty years ago, some idiots built a really, really terrible one and a few thousand people died messily? No. And, yes, I know that I'm going to get flamed for this. Go ahead. It needs to be said. If we want our species to survive the next hundred years, we need to get our heads out of our emotional rear ends.

jshen 16y ago
I don't disagree, and I wasn't trying to imply that we shouldn't use nuclear power by submitting this link. But, I think we should take a hard look in the mirror and ask ourselves how much energy we waste. Most of us treat electricity like it's free and infinite, and what I want to take away from this is that we should really be more responsible with our energy use because there are consequences.
cantbecool 16y ago
I understand your logic, but just remember, "all machines do eventually break down."
- saulrh 16y ago
  True. Banqaio dam, for example, or the USS Grandcamp in Texas City, or Deepwater Horizon. Nuclear breaks down, and when it does it causes some pretty horrific injuries, but other things break down with far greater frequency and with far more deadly (albeit less media-exploitable) consequences.
callmevlad 16y ago
Wish I could downvote this. Just because we need nuclear energy to survive, doesn't mean you need to demote this massive and tragic accident to a statistical blip made up of "single cases".
- breathesalt 16y ago

callmevlad 16y ago

Relevant conversation on a previous thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2374194 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2374194