Ted Rockwell demolishes Chernobyl "one million dead" myth (WARNING: fear buzzkill)

[wtmusic]

At issue is the Greenpeace-initiated-and-edited report Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, published by the New York Academy of Sciences.

Here, distinguished NYAS member Rockwell arrogantly demands that an academy of science publish actual science:

"The type of claims it makes, of extensive radiological damage to people and the environment from the Chernobyl reactor explosion of 1986, have been repeatedly shown to be contradicted by the data. The NYAS report unfortunately carries these claims to new heights, calling the incident “the largest technological catastrophe in history.” claiming “a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power…No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination.” Getting more specific, the report claims “Prior to 1985, more than 80% of children in the Chernobyl territories…were healthy; today fewer than 20% are well. In the heavily contaminated areas, it is difficult to find one healthy child.”

The facts of the case are quite different. For example, in the exclusion zone, where the report claims it is difficult to find one healthy child, the radioactivity is lower than my sister’s front yard in Colorado (where she raised four very healthy children, and the cancer rate is significantly lower than average). And the Ukrainian tourism bureau is sponsoring eco-tours to show how wildlife is flourishing because the human presence has been restricted. Two thousand villages in the evacuated zone are being repopulated. The Chernobyl meltdown has probably been studied more than any other industrial casualty, by the UNSCEAR, WHO, Red Cross, IAEA, et al. The NYAS report implies that these organizations are uncritical tools of the nuclear industry, but offers no supporting evidence for such a claim.

<>

b. The Ukrainian government offered extensive incentives to declare oneself a “Chernobyl victim.” The original contract with the Soviet government promised that any person injured by the reactor would be fully taken care of, at the expense of the Russian government. This provision came to include housing, hospitalization and other medical care, and cash. The program became so lavish and extensive that resentment grew up against the “victims” who were judged by many to be parasites. There were fund-raising tours through USA and elsewhere, of malformed “Chernobyl victims” who didn’t even all live in or near Chernobyl."

http://theenergycollective.com/rodadams/56482/challenging-new-york-academy-sciences-repudiate-chernobyl-consequences?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[keopeli]

1. This vapid rebuttal is notably absent of scientific data

In spite of the author's admonishments of the report for its citation of anecdotes, the article is riddled with the same.

I suppose if you want to believe (or disbelieve) something badly enough, you can be persuaded by any conjecture to the contrary.

[wtmusic]

3. It's not an article, it's a letter

and it's basically repeating what the World Health Organization reported. For example:

"The extensive system of Chernobyl-related benefits has created expectations of long-term direct financial support and entitlement to privileges, and has undermined the capacity of the individuals and communities concerned to tackle their own economic and social problems," the report concluded."

http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/rosenthal2/

"Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" is initiated and at least partially funded by a group with an admitted agenda (Greenpeace). The quoted research is all from people with substantial regional ties, with whom Chernobyl financial support would create a conflict of interest.

Conversely, there's no evidence whatsoever that the World Health Organization is influenced by the nuclear lobby.

[DCKit]

2. FAIL. Chernobyl EXPLODED with great force.

"There were fund-raising tours through USA and elsewhere, of malformed “Chernobyl victims” who didn’t even all live in or near Chernobyl.""

You should have omitted that single sentence. Would've done wonders for the credibility of the article.

[madokie]

4. You can believe whatever you want

all I ask is don't expect me to believe this stupid ass shit. What a fucking failure, whoever wrote this tripe or you for posting it as fact.

[NickB79]

5. That's the great thing about science. You don't have to believe, you have evidence

And no one has yet found any evidence that anywhere near 1 million people have died from Chernobyl.

[kristopher]

6. Cigarettes don't cause cancer or heart disease...

Your claim and that in the OP is an example of the abuse of science, not the use of science. It is the same type of game with epidemiology used by every polluter since day one. If the consequences are less direct than a bullet in the brain you claim that there is no "proof" of damage.

[FBaggins]

7. What a great example. Thanks!

Cigarettes DO cause cancer. Plus you never know which cigarette is going to be the one that tips you over the line. There is no "safe" level of cigarette smoking.

But it's still pretty ridiculous to get all exicted over the fact that someone lit a cigarette on the other side of the county.

[NickB79]

8. No one here denies that people died from Chernobyl

Whereas a polluter like you mentioned usually DOES deny that they are directly responsible for any deaths.

The question posited in the OP was, how many people died from the Chernobyl meltdown, not if people have died from it. Apparently some groups are making the extraordinary claim that up to 1 MILLION people have died due to the Chernobyl melt-down. Other studies have pegged the number at anywhere from a few thousand to upwards of 100,000, which has to make one wonder what evidence was uncovered to justify the increase above the previous worst-case estimate by a full order of magnitude.

[madokie]

9. I don't know if a million people have died or not and I'm not saying that many have

but this hooey about a few hundred at most is pure-d-o-bullshit, texas longhorn style bullshit

[txlibdem]

10. Anti-nukers are impervious to facts

That's the best way to tell a religion from a science: in the anti-nuke religion facts don't matter unless you can use them to prove the anti-nuke belief system.