at The Wall Street Journal
(I inserted the links):
“Even while thousands of people are reported dead or missing, whole neighborhoods lie in ruins, and gas and oil fires rage out of control, press coverage of the Japanese earthquake has quickly settled on the troubles at two [now four] nuclear reactors as the center of the catastrophe….
There was a small release of radioactive steam at Three Mile Island in 1979, and there have also been a few releases at Fukushima Daiichi. These produce radiation at about the level of one dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate…
Researchers have spent 30 years trying to find health effects from the steam releases at Three Mile Island and have come up with nothing.”
Click here for more commentary.
Click here and put Chernobyl in perspective.
Every so-called “journalist” on the planet is shamelessly exploiting this equivalent of a dental X-Ray solely for the sake of the ratings race. Some are even exploiting the ratings race in a shameless attempt at political gain. ALL of this amounts to utterly despicable media malpractice!
Chernobyl produced a grand total of 30 deaths. According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data for 2009, that is the equivalent of LESS THAN 8 hours of carnage on our national highway system. If we allowed our wildest fantasies to run wild and imagined that the current mess produced FOUR Chernobyls, that would amount to LESS THAN two days of carnage on our national highway system. Of course, if you read the primary citation in this post, you know why that relatively innocuous outcome is not even remotely possible.
8 comments:
The 30 deaths at Chernobyl were the immediate aftermath, mostly of the people who tried to control the damage. Thousands were affected by the radiation poisoning in that it caused cancer and birth defects. The area around Chernobyl won't be safely inhabitable for about another 30k years. Would you want to live near it? I certainly wouldn't.
Three Mile Island was minuscule in comparison. At the moment, Japan is as well. As long as they can maintain the situation it won't be like Chernobyl. The thing is though, it *could* be.
Would you rather die quickly in a car wreck of head trauma, or slowly of radiation poisoning? People make more out of the radiation poisoning because it's not a pleasant thing. It's pretty horrendous.
Anonymous,
These are the substantiated facts on Chernobyl:
"Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning…
Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) was originally diagnosed in 237 people on-site and involved with the clean-up and it was later confirmed in 134 cases. Of these, 28 people died as a result of ARS within a few weeks of the accident. Nineteen more subsequently died between 1987 and 2004 but their deaths cannot necessarily be attributed to radiation exposured. Nobody off-site suffered from acute radiation effects"
Even some in the media are beginning to take a few baby steps towards admitting that they have severely over-hyped this nuclear incident and each nuclear incident which preceded it. The simple truth is that not ONE person in ALL of Western Civilization has EVER died from radiation poisoning.
Anonymous (Mar 15, 2011 9:19:00 PM),
1) Assertion:
“Thousands were affected by the radiation poisoning in that it caused cancer and birth defects.”
A) According to the UNSCEAR, “more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer” MIGHT have been caused by Chernobyl. But, the cure rate for thyroid cancer is “more than 97%”.
The same UNSCEAR report also notes that:
“There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.”.
B) The UNSCEAR 2001 REPORT dealing with birth defects from Chernobyl finds:
“no unambiguous evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome, congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.”
2) Assertion:
“The area around Chernobyl won't be safely inhabitable for about another 30k years.”
According to a 2006 report from the BBC:
“much of the abandoned area will be habitable within decades.”
3) Assertion:
“As long as they can maintain the situation it won't be like Chernobyl.”
If you had read the original post and the various citations, you would know that there is not even a remote possibility that the Japanese plants will become another Chernobyl. It’s apples and oranges.
oh SBVOR, I love you. Nice link, cuz the WNA has NO vested interest in downplaying the impact of Chernobyl. Still stacking the deck, I see. For the record, I agree that the MAINSTREAM media is over stating the danger in Japan, and I agree that nuclear power is a safe energy option with risks in proportion to benefits, especially when one considers the newer generation facilities whose cooling systems are not dependent upon the "grid." It's just your use of unabashedly unbiased sources that make me giggle. Thats sarcasm, by the way.
Pinhead Joe (Mar 17, 2011 7:33:00 PM),
If you (ignorantly, as usual) believe the WNO (not the WNA) has distorted the facts, feel free to examine the reporting from your beloved United Nations.
Click here and find that I cited the UNSCEAR in a comment in this very thread.
"WNA: Supporting a Fast-Globalizing Nuclear Industry."
From your "the substantiated facts" link to anonymous.
Get your acronyms straight. you cant even get your own sources right. WNO? WNA? who cares? We're shootin' from the hip here, ya pinkos!
I know you make a habit of missing the point, but here goes...I don't think they've distorted the facts. I just think that it is irresponsible to support your argument with a link to an organization who, at the top of their homepage states that they are "Supporting a Fast-Globalizing Nuclear Industry."
and there's nothing wrong with "Supporting a Fast-Globalizing Nuclear Industry."
Pinhead Joe,
1) Okay, you got the acronym (WNA) right and I got it wrong
2) You say:
"I just think that it is irresponsible to support your argument with a link to an organization who, at the top of their homepage states that they are Supporting a Fast-Globalizing Nuclear Industry."
A) It’s a counter-balance to the utterly worthless, utterly irresponsible hysteria mongering of so-called “journalists”.
B) In addition to the WNA, I cited (in the main body of the post) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for data on Three Mile Island.
C) In the comments section, I cited the United Nations (and, EVERY one of these sources refutes the hysteria mongering so-called “journalists”). It’s called “Fair & Balanced”. Try it sometime.
D) By your own admission, you see no evidence that the WNA has distorted the facts. So, if they have the facts straight (and, demonstrably, they DO), what the HELL does it matter if they have a point of view?
Post a Comment