How many deaths from Chernobyl?

[Dunaruna]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

[colour=blue]Not to mention the water table........................

 

[QC]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

PW2,

Who said it was insignificant? That was not my point, Crichton's or anyone who posted on this thread . . .

 

[colonel_sanders]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

can't help but post this, for anyone who may not have already seen this.
check out some of these chernobyl pics,.

kidofspeed.com

 

[DaleT]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

Check this link out for some first hand account. Beit as it may a little to the leftist extreme even for my tastes. It nonetheless shows some of the true ramifications of the fall out of the event. Take it for what it's worth to you.

I'm not trying to prod the argument, just showing how it effects those directly involved. Not what is stated as fact by those who comissioned a study. Mind you the person who is showing these images and intepretations is also stating biased opinion. I feel some valid points are raised by her assumptions as well as some common misconceptions.

I really don't know what to think on the total outcome or the final numbers. I do, however, believe they should be representetive of all those involved including the cleanup. The real question is to waht exetent to we coralate the relevanceand length of time after the incident to the adverse effects that are so often associated. As I said I have no answers, and place no blame, I am merely pointing out another view on the situation.

 

[Tail_Gunner]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

Iran wants to use Nuke power because it has so little immediate impact on the environment. No CO2, no SO2, no particulates, etc. They have no major rivers that they can dam to get hydro power.

Also, if they burn their oil they can't sell it to China.

Chernobyl? Including long term effects of radiation I would have said several thousand. Shows that media can fool me, too.

OK just a sec here.............Iran wants to use Nuke power because it has so little immediate impact on the environment. No CO2, no SO2, no particulates, etc. They have no major rivers that they can dam to get hydro power.


JB that was a test run was it not ................. god id hate to flame a guru...................8)

 

[JB]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

You disagree, TG? What do you think?

 

[PW2]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

If the conclusion of his speech is "Science with a pure political motivation as opposed to a scientific motivation is not to be believed" I would agree with him.

And I have no doubt there are some scientists on every side of any issue that can be bought.

Still, it is my experience that the majority of real scientists want their research to be credible, regardless of the political consequences, and to denounce all science that disagrees with your political position as bogus is ridiculous, IMO.

 

[crunch]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

If the conclusion of his speech is "Science with a pure political motivation as opposed to a scientific motivation is not to be believed" I would agree with him.

And I have no doubt there are some scientists on every side of any issue that can be bought.

Still, it is my experience that the majority of real scientists want their research to be credible, regardless of the political consequences, and to denounce all science that disagrees with your political position as bogus is ridiculous, IMO.

Get real PW, scientist want their research to be funded, to be funded they have to please those with the money, to please those with the money they show results that will get them more money.... hey, they gotta eat too.

 

[QC]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

PW2,

You ignore the fact that any research done that is funded by a known funder will affect the outcome regardless of the data. Let me see if I can say this clearer. If a scientist is asked by Al Gore to investigate Global Warming let's assume that the scientist will know what Gore's hoped for outcome is. It has been proven that even without any money involved, the scientist knowing the desired outcome will affect the reported results. It does not matter how honest and analytical and unbiased the scientist may believe that he/she is, the subsequent report WILL be impacted simply by knowing what the "customer" hopes for. Let alone what the scientist hopes for deep down . . .

 

[QC]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

I went to the kidofspeed thing and I honestly have no idea what she was trying to tell me. I did however pick this from one of the pages:

"How many people died of radiation? No one knows - not even approximately. The official casualty reports range from 30 to 300,000 and many unofficial sources put the toll over 400,000.

The final toll will not be known in our lifetime, and maybe not our childrens either."

That is the whole point of my post!! She is repeating things she either assumes or has read, but not any "official" numbers. Whether or not the correct number is 56 or 400,000, the fact is that people and governments are making policy decisions based on crap!!

Also, the pictures of desolation are also a result of crap. Reread the bold line in my second post. It is now believed by some (the UN) that the biggest damage was psychological due to bad information!!!!!

 

[Speedwagon]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

PW2,

You ignore the fact that any research done that is funded by a known funder will affect the outcome regardless of the data. Let me see if I can say this clearer. If a scientist is asked by Al Gore to investigate Global Warming let's assume that the scientist will know what Gore's hoped for outcome is. It has been proven that even without any money involved, the scientist knowing the desired outcome will affect the reported results. It does not matter how honest and analytical and unbiased the scientist may believe that he/she is, the subsequent report WILL be impacted simply by knowing what the "customer" hopes for. Let alone what the scientist hopes for deep down . . .

Don't most scientists come up with a hypothesis, and then set out to prove that hypothesis? It doesn't always work out that way, but I'm looking for X, I'm more likely to find X than to find Y.

 

[mscher]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

The two main points I had received from this post are:

1. A totally horrific accident happened in a Communist country. Very little, if any accurate information was released by the government, even years later.

2. The media, in their undying quest to constantally give us the "truth", but must always include sensation, either refers to "some source" for their information, or they may just simply make it up.

It is foolish for anyone to believe anything from the media without a large level of scrutiny.

Media and news is really nothing much more than lurid entertainment these days, IMO.

 

[CJY]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

"It has been proven that even without any money involved, the scientist knowing the desired outcome will affect the reported results. It does not matter how honest and analytical and unbiased the scientist may believe that he/she is, the subsequent report WILL be impacted simply by knowing what the "customer" hopes for. Let alone what the scientist hopes for deep down . . . "


QC,

This being the case, then you are not talking about science. It does not take research or even a scientific study to tell someone what they want to hear.

I am not saying all scientists are not biased. I don't believe they all are either. Also, it does not make a whole lot of sense for scientists to study something they already have the answer to. Scientists publish results in science Journals. Journals other scientist read. Biased results will quickly lead to poor credibility in a scientist quickly ruining any hopes for a continued career in research. A scientists cannot afford to publish biased results. Without them being published for review, they mean little.

 

[crunch]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

The Green, Liberal media will always use sensationalism on any subject such as Nuclear disasters, Global warming, no more fish, and your kids will be mutants because of pesticides and/or Gene modification of your food just to rile you up... makes good press (sales), but sucks as science.

Look to where the monetary/political gain is in all studies funded by any source, then research and apply a bit of common sense... you’ll soon see the agenda, the facts you’ll have to dig out yourself.

 

[crunch]

Re: How many deaths from Chernobyl?

Scientists publish results in science Journals. Journals other scientist read. Biased results will quickly lead to poor credibility in a scientist quickly ruining any hopes for a continued career in research. A scientists cannot afford to publish biased results. Without them being published for review, they mean little.

True in REAL scientific circles... not true in “grab the grants science”. Most Universities are *****s to the almighty buck, and the popular press re-enforces this with sensational coverage which produces more bucks... it's not a perfect world.