6 ms·

Chernobyl killed about 10k people. A single dam collapse killed 170k people a few decades ago.

by ciphol 5y ago

ornornor 5y ago
Chernobyl killed millions of people over time. Tons of thyroid cancers that would have never existed if Chernobyl didn’t explode.
- suyjuris 5y ago
  Do you have any kind of source for this? As far as I am aware, estimates for deaths based on thyroid cancers are ~160 [1]. Not 'thousand, just 160 – you claim is off by five orders of magnitude. Estimates for the total death toll are up to 60000 if you assume the linear no-threshold model [2], so might be much lower in reality. [1] See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di.... [2] The model assumes that any amount of radiation is harmful and estimates the harm of low doses as a corresponding fraction of the harm of large doses. Empirical evidence is unclear, at best, but it functions as worst-case estimate.
  - spopejoy 5y ago
    How about the 2009 epidemiology study that estimates > 900,000 dead by 2009 with no end in sight? Quoting from a summary (easy to find the original): > In 2009, the New York Academy of Sciences published a book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. A team of European scientists led by Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to Russian Presidents Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev, assembled over 5,000 research studies, most written in Russian and not previously published. > The results were staggering. Yablokov’s team estimated that just in the first 20 years after the Chernobyl meltdown, some 986,000 deaths attributable to it occurred, many in parts of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. The percent of children living in these areas considered in good health plunged from 80% to 20%. Rates of certain cancers soared, including childhood thyroid cancer in Ukraine (20 times higher) and Belarus (200 times higher). Rates of disease in covering many organs in the body all increased in areas closest to Chernobyl. > Yablokov’s team indicated that the number of casualties would continue to grow, well after publication of the book.
    - suyjuris 5y ago
      Thank you, that is indeed a source and I have raised my estimate of the probability larger casualties slightly. (For the record: above excerpt is from an article in the online magazine CounterPunch [1], which itself refers to the 2009 book [2].) However, its methodology and rigour have been criticised [3]. As I am not an expert in this area I cannot evaluate the source directly, but several general heuristics apply. The source is a single book. (I am aware that the book claims to rely on numerous non-english sources, but I do not believe that they make the same claims.) The book relies on observational epidemiological data, which is generally hard to get right, and dose-response curves seem to be not analysed (seeing a relationship between doses and effect sizes is a good way to exclude spurious correlations). Finally, since the article mentions Yablokov's prior occupation I will also note that he founded and lead the Soviet chapter of Greenpeace, an organisation with a strong anti-nuclear position. So I do not think that this is strong evidence. (But as I said earlier, I do currently consider it weak evidence.) In any case, the book claims one million deaths, not multiple millions, and only a fraction of those is attributed to thyroid cancer. [1] https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/02/russian-takeover-of-chernobyl-poses-grave-health-threat/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/02/russian-takeover-of-... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20110419144513/http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110419144513/http://www.strahl... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment#Reviews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
      - spopejoy 5y ago
        You're cherry-picking negative responses from the wikipedia article, as opposed to the following: > The IAEA/WHO have often sought to justify their dismissal of eastern European epidemiological studies by citing questionable scientific practices: but epidemiology is not an exact science, and the same shortcomings exist in western studies uncriticised by the IAEA. The IAEA also point to shortcomings with pre-Chernobyl Soviet cancer registries, but cancer registries in western countries had similar issues at that time. Indeed, where is the criticism for the IEAE and WHO applying a very selective "conservativism" about epidemiological research, much like big tobacco and DuPont? They're the reason nuke fanboys make risible claims like "< 100 people died because of Chernobyl" and don't get laughed out of the room. Pointing out that the author was affiliated with Greenpeace without noting the systemic bias of nuclear organizations against epidimiological data is questionable.

Chernobyl killed about 10k people. A single dam collapse killed 170k people a few decades ago.

by ciphol 5y ago

Chernobyl killed about 10k people. A single dam collapse killed 170k people a few decades ago.

Chernobyl killed millions of people over time. Tons of thyroid cancers that would have never existed if Chernobyl didn’t explode.

suyjuris 5y ago
Do you have any kind of source for this? As far as I am aware, estimates for deaths based on thyroid cancers are ~160 [1]. Not 'thousand, just 160 – you claim is off by five orders of magnitude. Estimates for the total death toll are up to 60000 if you assume the linear no-threshold model [2], so might be much lower in reality. [1] See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di.... [2] The model assumes that any amount of radiation is harmful and estimates the harm of low doses as a corresponding fraction of the harm of large doses. Empirical evidence is unclear, at best, but it functions as worst-case estimate.
- spopejoy 5y ago
  How about the 2009 epidemiology study that estimates > 900,000 dead by 2009 with no end in sight? Quoting from a summary (easy to find the original): > In 2009, the New York Academy of Sciences published a book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. A team of European scientists led by Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to Russian Presidents Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev, assembled over 5,000 research studies, most written in Russian and not previously published. > The results were staggering. Yablokov’s team estimated that just in the first 20 years after the Chernobyl meltdown, some 986,000 deaths attributable to it occurred, many in parts of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. The percent of children living in these areas considered in good health plunged from 80% to 20%. Rates of certain cancers soared, including childhood thyroid cancer in Ukraine (20 times higher) and Belarus (200 times higher). Rates of disease in covering many organs in the body all increased in areas closest to Chernobyl. > Yablokov’s team indicated that the number of casualties would continue to grow, well after publication of the book.
  - suyjuris 5y ago
    Thank you, that is indeed a source and I have raised my estimate of the probability larger casualties slightly. (For the record: above excerpt is from an article in the online magazine CounterPunch [1], which itself refers to the 2009 book [2].) However, its methodology and rigour have been criticised [3]. As I am not an expert in this area I cannot evaluate the source directly, but several general heuristics apply. The source is a single book. (I am aware that the book claims to rely on numerous non-english sources, but I do not believe that they make the same claims.) The book relies on observational epidemiological data, which is generally hard to get right, and dose-response curves seem to be not analysed (seeing a relationship between doses and effect sizes is a good way to exclude spurious correlations). Finally, since the article mentions Yablokov's prior occupation I will also note that he founded and lead the Soviet chapter of Greenpeace, an organisation with a strong anti-nuclear position. So I do not think that this is strong evidence. (But as I said earlier, I do currently consider it weak evidence.) In any case, the book claims one million deaths, not multiple millions, and only a fraction of those is attributed to thyroid cancer. [1] https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/02/russian-takeover-of-chernobyl-poses-grave-health-threat/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/02/russian-takeover-of-... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20110419144513/http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110419144513/http://www.strahl... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment#Reviews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
    - spopejoy 5y ago
      You're cherry-picking negative responses from the wikipedia article, as opposed to the following: > The IAEA/WHO have often sought to justify their dismissal of eastern European epidemiological studies by citing questionable scientific practices: but epidemiology is not an exact science, and the same shortcomings exist in western studies uncriticised by the IAEA. The IAEA also point to shortcomings with pre-Chernobyl Soviet cancer registries, but cancer registries in western countries had similar issues at that time. Indeed, where is the criticism for the IEAE and WHO applying a very selective "conservativism" about epidemiological research, much like big tobacco and DuPont? They're the reason nuke fanboys make risible claims like "< 100 people died because of Chernobyl" and don't get laughed out of the room. Pointing out that the author was affiliated with Greenpeace without noting the systemic bias of nuclear organizations against epidimiological data is questionable.