11–20 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by horrible? I think it makes sense to be concerned about anything you're subjected to that you're not sure is safe.
Concerned? Yes. Panicked? Probably not. I think the media's presentation of the situation is more the latter.
Having grown up in Russia and personally being in contact with a few people affected by the Chernobyl fallout, it's a bit hard to take someone who tries to diminish the impact of that accident to this degree. Yes, maybe the UN report showed such a small number of confirmed fatalities, but I have a sneaky suspicion that they based it mostly on data collected by the Soviet Union. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't…
Having grown up in Russia and personally being in contact with a few people affected by the Chernobyl fallout, it's a bit hard to take someone who tries to diminish the impact of that accident to this degree. Yes, maybe the UN report showed such a small number of confirmed fatalities, but I have a sneaky suspicion that they based it mostly on data collected by the Soviet Union. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't…
Have you seen the actual numbers of this, and seen them put into perspective? I'd strongly recommend looking at http://xkcd.org/radiation/ -- he puts the data into an easy to relate to format.
Take one of the ones that measures an hour's exposure and multiply it by 24. Or a day and multiply it by 365. Suddenly the visual comparisons look much, much different.
Good luck. The media (and people in general) are horrible when it comes to technical things and scary invisible things. Nuclear is both.
What do you mean by horrible? I think it makes sense to be concerned about anything you're subjected to that you're not sure is safe.
Having grown up in Russia and personally being in contact with a few people affected by the Chernobyl fallout, it's a bit hard to take someone who tries to diminish the impact of that accident to this degree. Yes, maybe the UN report showed such a small number of confirmed fatalities, but I have a sneaky suspicion that they based it mostly on data collected by the Soviet Union. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't…
In the nineties, families in the country around where I grew up, here in Ireland, hosted children from Chernobyl every summer, so that they could breath clean air and eat clean food. I've also seen documentaries about birth defects in the years after the accident. Perhaps there weren't too many fatalities, but a lot of lives were very badly affected by the radiation and a lot more people died due to slow, radiation induced diseases. For example, in the reports, how many people who died of cancer or other diseases since were counted?
So, I agree with you - downplaying the dangers of radiation is careless and playing with peoples lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you seen the actual numbers of this, and seen them put into perspective? I'd strongly recommend looking at http://xkcd.org/radiation/ -- he puts the data into an easy to relate to format.
The biggest problem with that chart is that it mixes different time scales, which it only indicates in the text, not in the visual comparisons. Take one of the ones that measures an hour's exposure and multiply it by 24. Or a day and multiply it by 365. Suddenly the visual comparisons look much, much different.
Having grown up in Russia and personally being in contact with a few people affected by the Chernobyl fallout, it's a bit hard to take someone who tries to diminish the impact of that accident to this degree. Yes, maybe the UN report showed such a small number of confirmed fatalities, but I have a sneaky suspicion that they based it mostly on data collected by the Soviet Union. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't…
Have you seen the actual numbers of this, and seen them put into perspective? I'd strongly recommend looking at http://xkcd.org/radiation/ -- he puts the data into an easy to relate to format.
Having grown up in Russia and personally being in contact with a few people affected by the Chernobyl fallout, it's a bit hard to take someone who tries to diminish the impact of that accident to this degree. Yes, maybe the UN report showed such a small number of confirmed fatalities, but I have a sneaky suspicion that they based it mostly on data collected by the Soviet Union. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't…
Not to mention that they covered up the Chernobyl accident for I can't remember how many days before even bothering to tell the locals that they're in danger. In the nineties, families in the country around where I grew up, here in Ireland, hosted children from Chernobyl every summer, so that they could breath clean air and eat clean food. I've also seen documentaries about birth defects in the years after the accide…
Stop spreading such nonsense articles, please! Just because the immediate impact is comparatively low, that doesn't mean it's harmless.