Old 12-26-07, 01:09 PM
  #17  
ChipSeal
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
 
ChipSeal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Andy Dyson
Thanks for your reply, Chip. I have a feeling we're pretty far apart on the issues here...

I don't know where you got the 4000 deaths figure for Chernobyl (perhaps you were being sarcastic and it went over my head) but several hundred were directly killed and there are many horrific birth defects, threat to agriculture, etc.
"The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed."
"In addition, the IAEA states that there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer) corroborating UNSCEAR's assessments."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

The reports of the Chernobyl disaster were highly exaggerated, which is typical for our media and the anti-nuclear hysterics. The danger posed by nuclear waste is likewise inflated.

These outlandish fears have real human costs. Food poisoning could be nearly eliminated through irradiation, but anti-nuke activists have successfully blocked it's widespread use with false and hysterical claims. Result: Unnecessary deaths and illness.

I agree we are far apart on the issues. I imagine that may be due to our understanding of the facts of the things we talk about. Ignorance is an expensive problem, and our popular media isn't dissipating it.
ChipSeal is offline