FTA-TV Chernobyl

Remove this Banner Ad

BlakeyNoFlakey said:
I can't believe Bolt is saying that the scare about Chernobyl radiation is what killed people and it's just like the scare about climate change. This guy is a total moron.
Click to expand...

im not sure if he actually believes it, but by throwing in climate change his supporters will lap it uop
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BlakeyNoFlakey said:
I can't believe Bolt is saying that the scare about Chernobyl radiation is what killed people and it's just like the scare about climate change. This guy is a total moron.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with someone posting a photograph of a newspaper article. You are not quoting directly from the article and countering it.

Let's break this down

i) how many died as a result of the Chernobyl incident?

The simple answer is 'it's disputed'. I'm going to go with about 100 in the short term then go with epidemiologist Elisabeth Cardis for the total number of fatal cancers attributable directly to radiation received as a result of the explosion - ranging from around 9,000 to 15,000.​
​
thebulletin.org

The human drama of Chernobyl - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

In this interview, journalist Adam Higginbotham reveals some of the most common misconceptions and myths about the world’s worst nuclear accident, and why he still views nuclear energy as a potential weapon against climate change.
thebulletin.org thebulletin.org

ii) did the scare kill people?

Bolt is quoting Associate Professor, David Wigg, director of Clinical Radiology at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. He estimated 56 people died from the blast but because of radiation phobia there had been an estimated 1,250 suicides and between 100,000 and 200,000 elective abortions in Western Europe.​

iii) did the show sensationalise the deaths and sickness from the incident?

Yes. The 'bridge of death' is a myth. Firemen with bloody hands, and radiation sickness victims with pizza faces is a fiction. The helicopter crash happened much later and was not due to radiation. Remember those guys who waded into the water to turn the valves? They had no long term effects from the radiation.​

iii) should the Chernobyl incident deter us from investing in nuclear power?

I'll leave this open.​
 
sorted said:
This is the problem with someone posting a photograph of a newspaper article. You are not quoting directly from the article and countering it.

Let's break this down

i) how many died as a result of the Chernobyl incident?

The simple answer is 'it's disputed'. I'm going to go with about 100 in the short term then go with epidemiologist Elisabeth Cardis for the total number of fatal cancers attributable directly to radiation received as a result of the explosion - ranging from around 9,000 to 15,000.​
​
thebulletin.org

The human drama of Chernobyl - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

In this interview, journalist Adam Higginbotham reveals some of the most common misconceptions and myths about the world’s worst nuclear accident, and why he still views nuclear energy as a potential weapon against climate change.
thebulletin.org thebulletin.org

ii) did the scare kill people?

Bolt is quoting Associate Professor, David Wigg, director of Clinical Radiology at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. He estimated 56 people died from the blast but because of radiation phobia there had been an estimated 1,250 suicides and between 100,000 and 200,000 elective abortions in Western Europe.​

iii) did the show sensationalise the deaths and sickness from the incident?

Yes. The 'bridge of death' is a myth. Firemen with bloody hands, and radiation sickness victims with pizza faces is a fiction. The helicopter crash happened much later and was not due to radiation. Remember those guys who waded into the water to turn the valves? They had no long term effects from the radiation.​

iii) should the Chernobyl incident deter us from investing in nuclear power?

I'll leave this open.​
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on what you term a disaster.

This Miranda Devine article less than 2 weeks after Fukushima that wondered what all the fuss was about and how resilient these plants were. In Miranda’s own words...”what are a few millisieverts of radiation between friends?” Ah yes. Tell that to the 180,000 evacuees who still can’t go back home 8 years later.

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

No Cookies
www.dailytelegraph.com.au www.dailytelegraph.com.au

Gorbachev himself was in no doubt what a disaster it was in his article on 20th anniversary.

www.japantimes.co.jp

Turning point at Chernobyl

MOSCOW -- The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl 20 years ago this month, even more than my launch of perestroika, was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later. Indeed, the Chernobyl catastrophe was an historic turning point: there was the era before the disaster...
www.japantimes.co.jp www.japantimes.co.jp

Gorbachev quotes...

“We initially believed that the main impact of the explosion would be in Ukraine, but Belarus, to the northwest, was hit even worse, and then Poland and Sweden suffered the consequences.”

“Only a few days later, we learned that what happened was not a simple accident, but a genuine nuclear catastrophe”

“The price of the Chernobyl catastrophe was overwhelming, both in human terms and economically. Even today, the legacy of Chernobyl affects the economies of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.”
 
sorted said:
This is the problem with someone posting a photograph of a newspaper article. You are not quoting directly from the article and countering it.

Let's break this down

i) how many died as a result of the Chernobyl incident?

The simple answer is 'it's disputed'. I'm going to go with about 100 in the short term then go with epidemiologist Elisabeth Cardis for the total number of fatal cancers attributable directly to radiation received as a result of the explosion - ranging from around 9,000 to 15,000.​
​
thebulletin.org

The human drama of Chernobyl - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

In this interview, journalist Adam Higginbotham reveals some of the most common misconceptions and myths about the world’s worst nuclear accident, and why he still views nuclear energy as a potential weapon against climate change.
thebulletin.org thebulletin.org

ii) did the scare kill people?

Bolt is quoting Associate Professor, David Wigg, director of Clinical Radiology at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. He estimated 56 people died from the blast but because of radiation phobia there had been an estimated 1,250 suicides and between 100,000 and 200,000 elective abortions in Western Europe.​

iii) did the show sensationalise the deaths and sickness from the incident?

Yes. The 'bridge of death' is a myth. Firemen with bloody hands, and radiation sickness victims with pizza faces is a fiction. The helicopter crash happened much later and was not due to radiation. Remember those guys who waded into the water to turn the valves? They had no long term effects from the radiation.​

iii) should the Chernobyl incident deter us from investing in nuclear power?

I'll leave this open.​
Click to expand...

Believing the soviets cover ups is truly baffling. Bolt and his conservative brethren’s would lead you to believe that communism is the root of all evil and never to believed about anything.

Except it seems, when it’s convenient with your own narrative about something else

You know you can be honest about Chernobyl and be pro nuclear as this article shows https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ear-power-safe-clean-vital-column/1409096001/

*I personally think communism isn’t a great idea and a nuclear accident probably wouldn’t happen like this again, but at the same time can’t see much point in investing more in nuclear when we are making such large strides in renewables.
 
Blue1980 said:
Believing the soviets cover ups is truly baffling. Bolt and his conservative brethren’s would lead you to believe that communism is the root of all evil and never to believed about anything.

Except it seems, when it’s convenient with your own narrative about something else

You know you can be honest about Chernobyl and be pro nuclear as this article shows https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ear-power-safe-clean-vital-column/1409096001/

*I personally think communism isn’t a great idea and a nuclear accident probably wouldn’t happen like this again, but at the same time can’t see much point in investing more in nuclear when we are making such large strides in renewables.
Click to expand...

It's a bit tin foil hat to think that the UN Scientific Committee on the Affects of Atomic Radiation; Wade Allison, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Oxford; and Associate Professor; David Wigg, director of Clinical Radiology at the Royal Adelaide Hospital are all in on this Soviet conspiracy.

And congrats for falsely attributing an anti-nuclear quote from the pro-nuclear article that you posted. Here's a real quote from the article.

Nuclear energy is our future​

The good news is that a whole new crop of nuclear innovators and entrepreneurs are reimagining how we use this technology, with more than 70 advanced nuclear reactor projects underway in the United States. These designs use new types of fuel or coolant that cannot melt down. They are smaller and can provide electricity in hard to reach places, like remote Alaskan villages, which now rely on generators fueled by oil trucked in over dangerous ice roads. And they are flexible — because the wind doesn’t always blow nor the sun always shine, these advanced reactors can fill in the gaps.​
 
sorted said:
It's a bit tin foil hat to think that the UN Scientific Committee on the Affects of Atomic Radiation; Wade Allison, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Oxford; and Associate Professor; David Wigg, director of Clinical Radiology at the Royal Adelaide Hospital are all in on this Soviet conspiracy.

And congrats for falsely attributing an anti-nuclear quote from the pro-nuclear article that you posted. Here's a real quote from the article.

Nuclear energy is our future​

The good news is that a whole new crop of nuclear innovators and entrepreneurs are reimagining how we use this technology, with more than 70 advanced nuclear reactor projects underway in the United States. These designs use new types of fuel or coolant that cannot melt down. They are smaller and can provide electricity in hard to reach places, like remote Alaskan villages, which now rely on generators fueled by oil trucked in over dangerous ice roads. And they are flexible — because the wind doesn’t always blow nor the sun always shine, these advanced reactors can fill in the gaps.​
Click to expand...

Err I wasn't quoting the article, I was writing my opinion, not quoting the article.

I posted that article to show its possible to have a point of view about something and not be a dick about it.

You and Bolt deliberately cherry pick data. Those figures of 53 deaths or whatever their claiming, are the ones they directly attribute to the disaster. Meaning anyone who got cancer and died months/years later aren't counted to the figures. For example, a quarter of the 10000 miners were dead before they turned 40, but they are not claimed in any official figures from the Soviets or attributed to directly dying because of Chernobyl.
 
Gasometer said:
I was 18 in 1986 and remember this well...tbh the secrecy was frightening when it happened the week afterwards...no one in the West really knew anything
Click to expand...

Kinda like the opposite of tianamen square and china. Everyone knew but the chinese (outside of the big cities if that at all!)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Blue1980 said:
Err I wasn't quoting the article, I was writing my opinion, not quoting the article.

I posted that article to show its possible to have a point of view about something and not be a dick about it.

You and Bolt deliberately cherry pick data. Those figures of 53 deaths or whatever their claiming, are the ones they directly attribute to the disaster. Meaning anyone who got cancer and died months/years later aren't counted to the figures. For example, a quarter of the 10000 miners were dead before they turned 40, but they are not claimed in any official figures from the Soviets or attributed to directly dying because of Chernobyl.
Click to expand...

Fair enough on the opinion not quote thing.

2,500 of the miners dying before they turned 40 is another myth, like that they worked naked. For a start there were only about 400 of them. And a significant thing the show neglects to mention is that after the explosion at reactor No. 4 in 1986, the remaining three reactors at the power plant continued to operate until 2000.

The number of deaths are disputed. And people can be dick about it and cherry pick on both sides of the argument. You don't have to go along with a Soviet conspiracy to argue that the number of deaths were quite low. The UN Scientific Committee on the Affects of Atomic Radiation 2008 report stated

The observed health effects currently attributable to radiation exposure are as follows:​
​
- 134 plant staff and emergency workers received high doses of radiation that resulted in acute radiation syndrome (ARS), many of whom received skin injuries due to beta irradiation;​
- The high radiation doses proved fatal for 28 of these people;​
- While 19 ARS survivors have died up to 2006, their deaths have been for various reasons, and usually not associated with radiation exposure;​
- Other than this group of emergency workers, several hundred thousand people were involved in recovery operations, but to date, apart from the increase in the incidence of leukemia and cataracts among those who received higher doses, there is no evidence of health effects that can be attributed to radiation exposure.​


Higher numbers than that are estimates, such as by epidemiologist Elisabeth Cardis. Her risk projections find that by 2005 Chernobyl may have caused about 3,250 premature deaths due to cancer. And predicts that by the year 2065 there could be about 15,700 deaths due to cancer caused by the incident. I have no reason to doubt her figures apart from her own admission that the estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty.

www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.22037
 
Gasometer said:
I was 18 in 1986 and remember this well...tbh the secrecy was frightening when it happened the week afterwards...no one in the West really knew anything
Click to expand...
My wife's wasn't born yet but her mum tells the story that apparently on French news the cloud miraculously stopped at the German border and never entered France.
 
Dunno if this has been mentioned already but the guy who created Chernobyl has a bizarre list of credits to his name.

Strange to think the guy who wrote Scary Movie 3 and 4 is behind it.

www.imdb.com

Craig Mazin | Writer, Producer, Actor

Known for: Chernobyl, The Last of Us, Mythic Quest
www.imdb.com www.imdb.com
 
This series had some of the best production - and specifically sound design, that I have experienced in television in some time. The ambience produced during some of the scenes and location shots were giving off real Twin Peaks vibes at times. A five part re-imagining of one of the biggest historical disasters was always going to be engaging viewing.
 
There's a few minor storylines that aren't wrapped up (miners and the liquid nitrogen?) but it's very good. Maybe not my favourite true story TV show, that would still be The People Vs OJ Simpson, but it's an easy second. The radiation sufferers in the hospital was truly haunting and the quality of makeup was extraordinary and scary. Most of this I loved but in the end it went a bit too anti USSR, which is nothing new in media. I'll definitely be giving it a rewatch anyway.

The most chilling part for me was probably the real life footage at the end of the firefighters clothes still in the hospital. That just rammed everything home.

A mate of mine recently toured the exclusion zone and it looks amazing. Luckily because of our naturally elevated lead levels in this part of the world, we are immune to radiation :p. If I only get to go overseas once in my life, that's the bucket list. I'd spend a whole week there. Would love to have a poke around the unfinished reactors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top