5 ms·

I find it always fascinating, that the same groups (Greenpeace, etc.) are always quick to point to UN reports about climate change (like the IPCC report) as if

I find it always fascinating, that the same groups (Greenpeace, etc.) are always quick to point to UN reports about climate change (like the IPCC report) as if they were gospel but all the reports of the UN about Chernobyl and Fukushima are supposedly fake. I personally believe both are correct. After extensive, long-term, high-quality studies of the effects of (mid- to low-level) radiation on populations after Chernobyl [1], Fukushima (cf. article) and even Hiroshima [2], it is pretty safe to say that radiation poses a much smaller risk to humans than is often propagated in the horror scenarios of many environmental groups. The theory most of these scenarios are based on, ie. that every little amount of radiation lineraly increases the risks for cancer, is pretty much debunked. So, yes, nuclear is a dangerous technology, esp. if we keep stopping reserch and progress happening on a large scale and don't replace the 50 year old reactors. But coal kills tens of thousands every year and nuclear is still one of the few relatively reliable, almost CO2 neutral power sources we have. [1] https://www.un.org/press/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm https://www.un.org/press/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907953/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907953/

melomal 6y ago
> After extensive, long-term, high-quality studies of the effects of (mid- to low-level) radiation on populations after Chernobyl Ever heard of the Chernobyl babies born in Poland and Ukraine? My wife happens to be in that category and safe to say she has plenty of similar issues to other people in the same 'category'. Thyroid issues are a serious problem for many young women around here and it cannot be a coincidence. But I still do believe that nuclear is the way forward without doubt though. Just that these studies seem to be way off with the ongoing effects.
- dr_faustus 6y ago
  I have no doubt, that in the over 30 years after Chernobly hundreds of thousands of children were born with birth defects in Poland and Ukraine, many of them severe. Which is tragic. And has nothing to do with Chernobyl. Because roughly 6% of all babies born around the world have birth defects (https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/birth-defects-causes-and-statistics-863/ https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/birth-defects-caus...). As a parent, I can understand the impulse to attribute such a senseless act of nature to some outside, "evil" force. But the statistics just don't show any meaningful connection.
  - User23 6y ago
    This isn’t a meaningful comparison unless the pre Chernobyl birth defect rate in Poland and Ukraine was at least as high as the global one. I doubt that, because among other reasons there are high population countries with a long history of close cousin marriages that almost certainly have significantly higher birth defect rates than Eastern Europe pulling the global rate up.
    - M2Ys4U 6y ago
      >This isn’t a meaningful comparison unless the pre Chernobyl birth defect rate in Poland and Ukraine was at least as high as the global one. Even then there will be confounding effects. People are, generally, richer now than pre-Chernobyl. They will, generally, have better access to better healthcare.
    - orhmeh09 6y ago
      Citations and figures immediately, please, specifically relating to cousin marriage in those countries together with evidence that they “cause significantly higher birth defect rates...pulling the global rate up.” I grew up in an impacted area; you might call it downwind of Chernobyl. My mother had thyroid cancer at a young age and now had no thyroid. Numerous female relatives as well as friends and acquaintances have experienced similar problems and those are all associated with Chernobyl. Here’s a single scientific source. There are more, but I’m sure you’re eager to demonstrate your hypothesis that women in Eastern Europe are getting cancer not from industrial accidents but from cousin marriage. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535271/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535271/
      - melomal 6y ago
        Exactly! I can cite 5+ women here in Poland who I know that all have thyroid related issues. Not blood related to each other but born close to each other. As far as I can tell no one is humping their cousin... My mum died when she was 36 because she had spent a couple of years working in a battery production factory in LT. I remember visiting her too! The amount of cancer, the locations of it and the aggressiveness of the growths found in her pointed to the simple fact that she was exposed to incredibly harsh chemicals. But it could be blamed on X, Y, Z if need be but this is the reality of it. Cousin marriages and cancer? Wow.
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  Chernobyl is an extreme outlier caused by a very specific mix of bad technologies that no reactors use anymore.
  - SteveNuts 6y ago
    There are still many RBMK reactors running today. No NEW reactors would use that design though.
    - Hammershaft 6y ago
      Yeah, my bad! I thought I had heard they had all been decommissioned recently.
    - hef19898 6y ago
      A quick search showed 9 (or ten, depends on the list) active RBMK reactors, mostly younger ones.
Theory5 6y ago
>I find it always fascinating, that the same groups (Greenpeace, etc.) are always quick to point to UN reports about climate change (like the IPCC report) as if they were gospel but all the reports of the UN about Chernobyl and Fukushima are supposedly fake. I personally believe both are correct. I find this sort of thing is a reminder that I always need to find multiple sources, try to understand what the studies are and the extent they cover the topic and what the experts are saying about them to get a fair idea of what is going on. Its also a reminder that everyone has biases, both implicit and explicit, and it reminds me that I need to constantly review my stances to ensure I'm not only going by what my own biases want to follow (instead of the facts).as well as ensure I identify why a group may support one thing, but not another when currently available and reviewed info suggests both are correct. I also try and discourage myself from two other things I find common. The first is taking a large organization and assigning the same value to anything and everything they produce, even when its an org of many people and experts who have different internal groups that are experts in different areas. Its too easy to go "oh this group knows their stuff of X, published by doctors A, B, C. That is automatically equal to this other paper on a completely different topic published by Doctors X, Y, and Z."
- omgJustTest 6y ago
  Seriously though, no one has context for radiation vs chemical disasters. Don’t agree? Ask 10 randoms what Chernobyl and what Bhopal is... which was worse and how they differed. Bhopal had more of everything including : heritable effects, premature births / premature deaths, cancers, short term death tolls, long term impairment of life[1]. Compare by any metric to Chernobyl, you’ll find it’s similar in the type of ailment / outcome but at least two orders more severe in Bhopal. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster Edit: for those who want to also compare the subterfuge and gas-lighting elements in the two, they are also similar.
nickik 6y ago
The institutional green movement from almost its earliest years was fundamentally against nuclear and they have literally spend the last 60 years fighting against it, consistently going again all scientific evidence. Funny enough some of the very earliest parts of the movement went pro nuclear because they hoped it would prevent dams that destroy natural habitats. But of course the modern environmental movement is more concern enforcing some sort of anti-rational neo-naturalism. They always disagree with science on things that are 'unnatural' whatever that means, being against nuclear and GMO. Of course the repeatably also embrace and advertise the worst kind of anti-science alternative medicine, natural healing, homeopathy and all matter of utter nonsense. That is why I hate these organizations with a passion. They are anti-human, not pro-environment.

melomal 6y ago

> After extensive, long-term, high-quality studies of the effects of (mid- to low-level) radiation on populations after Chernobyl Ever heard of the Chernobyl babies born in Poland and Ukraine? My wife happens to be in that category and safe to say she has plenty of similar issues to other people in the same 'category'. Thyroid issues are a serious problem for many young women around here and it cannot be a coincidence. But I still do believe that nuclear is the way forward without doubt though. Just that these studies seem to be way off with the ongoing effects.

dr_faustus 6y ago
I have no doubt, that in the over 30 years after Chernobly hundreds of thousands of children were born with birth defects in Poland and Ukraine, many of them severe. Which is tragic. And has nothing to do with Chernobyl. Because roughly 6% of all babies born around the world have birth defects (https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/birth-defects-causes-and-statistics-863/ https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/birth-defects-caus...). As a parent, I can understand the impulse to attribute such a senseless act of nature to some outside, "evil" force. But the statistics just don't show any meaningful connection.
- User23 6y ago
  This isn’t a meaningful comparison unless the pre Chernobyl birth defect rate in Poland and Ukraine was at least as high as the global one. I doubt that, because among other reasons there are high population countries with a long history of close cousin marriages that almost certainly have significantly higher birth defect rates than Eastern Europe pulling the global rate up.
  - M2Ys4U 6y ago
    >This isn’t a meaningful comparison unless the pre Chernobyl birth defect rate in Poland and Ukraine was at least as high as the global one. Even then there will be confounding effects. People are, generally, richer now than pre-Chernobyl. They will, generally, have better access to better healthcare.
  - orhmeh09 6y ago
    Citations and figures immediately, please, specifically relating to cousin marriage in those countries together with evidence that they “cause significantly higher birth defect rates...pulling the global rate up.” I grew up in an impacted area; you might call it downwind of Chernobyl. My mother had thyroid cancer at a young age and now had no thyroid. Numerous female relatives as well as friends and acquaintances have experienced similar problems and those are all associated with Chernobyl. Here’s a single scientific source. There are more, but I’m sure you’re eager to demonstrate your hypothesis that women in Eastern Europe are getting cancer not from industrial accidents but from cousin marriage. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535271/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535271/
    - melomal 6y ago
      Exactly! I can cite 5+ women here in Poland who I know that all have thyroid related issues. Not blood related to each other but born close to each other. As far as I can tell no one is humping their cousin... My mum died when she was 36 because she had spent a couple of years working in a battery production factory in LT. I remember visiting her too! The amount of cancer, the locations of it and the aggressiveness of the growths found in her pointed to the simple fact that she was exposed to incredibly harsh chemicals. But it could be blamed on X, Y, Z if need be but this is the reality of it. Cousin marriages and cancer? Wow.
Hammershaft 6y ago
Chernobyl is an extreme outlier caused by a very specific mix of bad technologies that no reactors use anymore.
- SteveNuts 6y ago
  There are still many RBMK reactors running today. No NEW reactors would use that design though.
  - Hammershaft 6y ago
    Yeah, my bad! I thought I had heard they had all been decommissioned recently.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    A quick search showed 9 (or ten, depends on the list) active RBMK reactors, mostly younger ones.

Theory5 6y ago

>I find it always fascinating, that the same groups (Greenpeace, etc.) are always quick to point to UN reports about climate change (like the IPCC report) as if they were gospel but all the reports of the UN about Chernobyl and Fukushima are supposedly fake. I personally believe both are correct. I find this sort of thing is a reminder that I always need to find multiple sources, try to understand what the studies are and the extent they cover the topic and what the experts are saying about them to get a fair idea of what is going on. Its also a reminder that everyone has biases, both implicit and explicit, and it reminds me that I need to constantly review my stances to ensure I'm not only going by what my own biases want to follow (instead of the facts).as well as ensure I identify why a group may support one thing, but not another when currently available and reviewed info suggests both are correct. I also try and discourage myself from two other things I find common. The first is taking a large organization and assigning the same value to anything and everything they produce, even when its an org of many people and experts who have different internal groups that are experts in different areas. Its too easy to go "oh this group knows their stuff of X, published by doctors A, B, C. That is automatically equal to this other paper on a completely different topic published by Doctors X, Y, and Z."

omgJustTest 6y ago
Seriously though, no one has context for radiation vs chemical disasters. Don’t agree? Ask 10 randoms what Chernobyl and what Bhopal is... which was worse and how they differed. Bhopal had more of everything including : heritable effects, premature births / premature deaths, cancers, short term death tolls, long term impairment of life[1]. Compare by any metric to Chernobyl, you’ll find it’s similar in the type of ailment / outcome but at least two orders more severe in Bhopal. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster Edit: for those who want to also compare the subterfuge and gas-lighting elements in the two, they are also similar.

nickik 6y ago

The institutional green movement from almost its earliest years was fundamentally against nuclear and they have literally spend the last 60 years fighting against it, consistently going again all scientific evidence. Funny enough some of the very earliest parts of the movement went pro nuclear because they hoped it would prevent dams that destroy natural habitats. But of course the modern environmental movement is more concern enforcing some sort of anti-rational neo-naturalism. They always disagree with science on things that are 'unnatural' whatever that means, being against nuclear and GMO. Of course the repeatably also embrace and advertise the worst kind of anti-science alternative medicine, natural healing, homeopathy and all matter of utter nonsense. That is why I hate these organizations with a passion. They are anti-human, not pro-environment.