4 ms·

It was much worse than was reported. An online forum of nuclear engineers (I may still have the link) was the most informative source of news about the disaster

It was much worse than was reported. An online forum of nuclear engineers (I may still have the link) was the most informative source of news about the disaster at the time. EDIT: found the link. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=8b5b840e5e92174eb7a22932b9d60c0f&t=501974 http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=8b5b840e5e9217...

scotty79 13y ago
I hope I won't offend anyone by saying that some of the reported health problems after radioactive disaster are usually exaggerated to get reparations.
- ChristianMarks 13y ago
  It's only an assertion without specific evidence. The threads linked above run for tens of thousands of pages and form an important part of the historical record.
- Alex_MJ 13y ago
  It's a two way street - they're usually dramatically downplayed by authorities and anybody who would otherwise have to pay. If you're not loud and exaggerated, nobody with any ability to do anything listens and powerful people actively want you to not be heard. For illustration, the official number of deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster is 31.
  - markdown 13y ago
    > For illustration, the official number of deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster is 31. Link to a reputable source contradicting the official death toll please.
    - radiobat 13y ago
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20403-25-years-after-chernobyl-we-dont-know-how-many-died.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20403-25-years-after-c...
      - markdown 13y ago
        Eh, that doesn't contradict the official death toll. Did you even read it. It reckons that some people think there might be thousands by 2065... which is a little silly, since there would be thousands dead by then anyway and there is no way to link the deaths to the disaster. 3 out of every 7 people you know will die of cancer. Every single person you know will die of cancer if they aren't taken first by some other illness, accident, murder, or natural cause.
- coldtea 13y ago
  And I hope I don't offend anyone by saying that most of the numbers reported after a radioactive disaster are BS spin in order for the company/state to save face.
  - scotty79 13y ago
    Nothing offensive about it. Everybody hates governments and companies when things go wrong.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      I disagree. The recent local calamity was the Christchurch earthquake. By and large companies and the government acted well. A few big problems cropped up (dodgy insurance companies, regional government dealing with unsafe land, overwhelmed fire service etc), and things are far from sorted, however I am deeply impressed by what systems were in place. Funds existed to rebuild despite massive devastation, the emergency response was incredible and mostly well organized. There has been little corruption, mostly transparent processes and despite the most obnoxious bunch of cabinet ministers I can remember, the process has gone far better than I could have imagined.
      - scotty79 13y ago
        What I meant is not that cursing government and companies is right. Only that it's not offensive in current culture. Like calling Afroamericans N-word was not offensive hundred years ago or so. It was perfectly socially acceptable and so common that no-one thought it was seriously offensive.
        coldtea 13y ago
        I can't even begin to understand this idea. Do you suggest that cursing government and companies is akin to racism? Corporations and governments can and do screw up. They also do malicious things with bad intentions (even things that kill people). And when they do so, it's perfectly appropriate to call them on it. That's not something that will "go out of style".

scotty79 13y ago

I hope I won't offend anyone by saying that some of the reported health problems after radioactive disaster are usually exaggerated to get reparations.

ChristianMarks 13y ago
It's only an assertion without specific evidence. The threads linked above run for tens of thousands of pages and form an important part of the historical record.
Alex_MJ 13y ago
It's a two way street - they're usually dramatically downplayed by authorities and anybody who would otherwise have to pay. If you're not loud and exaggerated, nobody with any ability to do anything listens and powerful people actively want you to not be heard. For illustration, the official number of deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster is 31.
- markdown 13y ago
  > For illustration, the official number of deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster is 31. Link to a reputable source contradicting the official death toll please.
  - radiobat 13y ago
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20403-25-years-after-chernobyl-we-dont-know-how-many-died.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20403-25-years-after-c...
    - markdown 13y ago
      Eh, that doesn't contradict the official death toll. Did you even read it. It reckons that some people think there might be thousands by 2065... which is a little silly, since there would be thousands dead by then anyway and there is no way to link the deaths to the disaster. 3 out of every 7 people you know will die of cancer. Every single person you know will die of cancer if they aren't taken first by some other illness, accident, murder, or natural cause.
coldtea 13y ago
And I hope I don't offend anyone by saying that most of the numbers reported after a radioactive disaster are BS spin in order for the company/state to save face.
- scotty79 13y ago
  Nothing offensive about it. Everybody hates governments and companies when things go wrong.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    I disagree. The recent local calamity was the Christchurch earthquake. By and large companies and the government acted well. A few big problems cropped up (dodgy insurance companies, regional government dealing with unsafe land, overwhelmed fire service etc), and things are far from sorted, however I am deeply impressed by what systems were in place. Funds existed to rebuild despite massive devastation, the emergency response was incredible and mostly well organized. There has been little corruption, mostly transparent processes and despite the most obnoxious bunch of cabinet ministers I can remember, the process has gone far better than I could have imagined.
    - scotty79 13y ago
      What I meant is not that cursing government and companies is right. Only that it's not offensive in current culture. Like calling Afroamericans N-word was not offensive hundred years ago or so. It was perfectly socially acceptable and so common that no-one thought it was seriously offensive.
      - coldtea 13y ago
        I can't even begin to understand this idea. Do you suggest that cursing government and companies is akin to racism? Corporations and governments can and do screw up. They also do malicious things with bad intentions (even things that kill people). And when they do so, it's perfectly appropriate to call them on it. That's not something that will "go out of style".