Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

Post by thesmok » Thu, May 30, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

Cynddl wrote: post #74

I'm confused, did they legally entered the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone? I was told that biking into the Chernobyl Zone, e.g., is forbidden due to the risk of contamination when you exit. Edit: Indeed it was not. From Instagram, “we spent the night tiptoeing around razor wire fences, coasting through sleeping security checkpoints, and riding frantically away from some surprisingly alert and vigilant guard dogs.” This val…

Post by fulafel » Fri, May 31, 2019, 5:46 AM UTC

trhway wrote: post #95

tptacek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a pretty detailed report on health care in Belarus from 2013: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/232835/H... Of note: * Rates of smoking in Belarus are also high. * The indirect impact of Chernobyl includes a lack of health care facilities in the (rural) regions most impacted. If the stat you're working from was breast cancer mortality, I'd push back harder, but I don't think that's what you'r…

> * Rates of smoking in Belarus are also high. Russia and Poland have higher rates of smoking. Anyway, it would be mostly about lung cancer which isn't the main component here. > * The indirect impact of Chernobyl includes a lack of health care facilities in the (rural) regions most impacted. Lack of healthcare facilities doesn't really impact cancer incidence rate. >If the stat you're working from was breast cancer…

Post by vidarh » Fri, May 31, 2019, 1:00 PM UTC

moxie wrote: post #19

dweekly wrote: post #5

The pictures are lovely and the reflections profound. But much of the cited data here appears wrong. For instance, the article states (italicized): "six hundred helicopter pilots were killed" and yet it was only 600 helicopter pilots who _flew_ liquidator missions[1], two of which were killed in an piloting accident and none were registered killed from immediate radiation exposure[2], though at least one eventually d…

I think there's a lot of uncertainty in talking about Chernobyl, since most of the information published by the Soviet authorities was intentionally incorrect or misleading, designed to downplay the significance of the accident. One thing I've found interesting in talking about Chernobyl is that advocates of nuclear power are often willing to accept the Soviet numbers as fact, since they confirm the idea that nuclear…

Post by vidarh » Fri, May 31, 2019, 1:15 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #227

speaker1 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda miss your point. What then does the Fukushima incident reflect? Danger of Japanese system, lol? Or as the US contractors built it, the US system? As according analysis [1] the Fukushima station design itself did not consider the natural features of place. Chernobyl incident happened due to human error, according to same source. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Fukushima_and_Ch... edit: formatti…

Fukushima was a very extreme natural disaster striking at a precise location to expose that the Fukushima reactors were not fully ready for a theoretically possible but never in 1000+ years of Japanese history observed earthquake. 15,897 people died in Japan that day, in buildings, roads, and vehicles. None from the nuclear incident. Yet no one talks about how the building, road, and vehicle security failed and wants…

Post by vidarh » Fri, May 31, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #258

vidarh wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could have a Fukushima and a Chernobyl a year and it would still be a net improvement.

In numbers of dead, you're right. In left behind "exclusion zones", it would become untenable.