4 ms·

The real amount of victims of nuclear accidents is hotly disputed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_E

The real amount of victims of nuclear accidents is hotly disputed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... Fukushima: more than 2200 victims from the evacuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident Hydro victims are mostly those of the Banqiao disaster, which is a fluke. In similar conditions anything would go boom with way less latency. It took place during the Chinese Cultural Revolution when most people were busy with the "revolution" which began in 1966 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure ) A well-placed expert whistle-blowing was totally ignored and even punished https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#Whistle-blower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#Whist... This Revolution followed the "Great Leap Forward", with famines and millions victims. Moreover all this came after a civil war and violent Japanese invasion, during which dams were bombed, causing "massive flooding in Henan" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era ) In such a context an otherwise avoidable catastrophe may happen. Then a huge typhoon closed the case ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Nina_(1975) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Nina_(1975) ) Predicting and adverting this catastrophe was possible, but given such a context nobody was able to do so. One may imagine what an active nuclear reactor would become/trigger in such a context.

evilos 3y ago
Ah, the infamous NYAS hit job. It wasn't even peer reviewed, yet it was published on behalf of a supposedly scientific community. That should tell you everything you need to know. Meanwhile, the UN Scientific Commissions and Harvard/Kyiv medical studies have found no increase in cancers due to Chernobyl. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ The Fukushima evacuation was wholly unnecessary and was only done because of the illogical fear of radiation that is spread by anti nuke orgs. That blood is on the hands of those who uphold and spread these lies.
- natmaka 3y ago
  This book is an analysis of scientific literature, and the authors pedigrees seem convincing to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment#Authors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... Most authors of negative critics are authors of reports this book criticized, and other ones are weirdos. The book's authors answered to all critics. One of the critics is Monty Charles. His own work, done for the UNSCEAR (a pro-nuke UN agency) in 2006, is heavily criticized in the book. He then criticized this book. Another critic was published by Mona Dreicer, who worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (another UN pro-nuke agency) and the book criticized her work. Another one is M. Balonov, long-time contributor of reports published by UN-agencies, and the book criticizes his work. S. Jargin, another author of a negative review, sees flaws in each and every publication criticizing a powerful industry. For example asbestos is in his opinion not a concern and its use unduly prohibited ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_mesothelioma_and_lung_cancer_a_comment https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_... ) His 'debate' with Rosamund Katz and Janette Sherman is surrealistic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278732482_Who_Is_Afraid_of_Volume_1181_of_the_New_York_Academy_of_Sciences_Under_Threat_the_Nuclear_Establishment_Plays_Dirty https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278732482_Who_Is_Af... The UN is notoriously pro-nuke, and the UNSCEAR only composed of nuclear-energy related nations (exploiting reactors, extracting uranium...). About the WHO: http://independentwho.org/ http://independentwho.org/
- natmaka 3y ago
  > The Fukushima evacuation was wholly unnecessary During such a disaster very few are able to assess the real risk, in real time, and even less to predict it. Panic ensues. This is intrinsic to the underlying physical and biological phenomenon, and therefore to nuclear. > illogical fear of radiation If there is nothing to fear how comes Japan disburses hundred of billions in order to clean up the nuclear mess? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup

evilos 3y ago

Ah, the infamous NYAS hit job. It wasn't even peer reviewed, yet it was published on behalf of a supposedly scientific community. That should tell you everything you need to know. Meanwhile, the UN Scientific Commissions and Harvard/Kyiv medical studies have found no increase in cancers due to Chernobyl. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ The Fukushima evacuation was wholly unnecessary and was only done because of the illogical fear of radiation that is spread by anti nuke orgs. That blood is on the hands of those who uphold and spread these lies.

natmaka 3y ago
This book is an analysis of scientific literature, and the authors pedigrees seem convincing to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment#Authors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... Most authors of negative critics are authors of reports this book criticized, and other ones are weirdos. The book's authors answered to all critics. One of the critics is Monty Charles. His own work, done for the UNSCEAR (a pro-nuke UN agency) in 2006, is heavily criticized in the book. He then criticized this book. Another critic was published by Mona Dreicer, who worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (another UN pro-nuke agency) and the book criticized her work. Another one is M. Balonov, long-time contributor of reports published by UN-agencies, and the book criticizes his work. S. Jargin, another author of a negative review, sees flaws in each and every publication criticizing a powerful industry. For example asbestos is in his opinion not a concern and its use unduly prohibited ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_mesothelioma_and_lung_cancer_a_comment https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_... ) His 'debate' with Rosamund Katz and Janette Sherman is surrealistic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278732482_Who_Is_Afraid_of_Volume_1181_of_the_New_York_Academy_of_Sciences_Under_Threat_the_Nuclear_Establishment_Plays_Dirty https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278732482_Who_Is_Af... The UN is notoriously pro-nuke, and the UNSCEAR only composed of nuclear-energy related nations (exploiting reactors, extracting uranium...). About the WHO: http://independentwho.org/ http://independentwho.org/
natmaka 3y ago
> The Fukushima evacuation was wholly unnecessary During such a disaster very few are able to assess the real risk, in real time, and even less to predict it. Panic ensues. This is intrinsic to the underlying physical and biological phenomenon, and therefore to nuclear. > illogical fear of radiation If there is nothing to fear how comes Japan disburses hundred of billions in order to clean up the nuclear mess? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup