Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Film of Chernobyl - the immediate aftermath

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users Posts: 12,431 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    strobe wrote: »
    There is a kind of poetic something or other about the whole thing, mankind moving in and polluting the whole gaff, having to abandon it, but ultimately it was only mankind that was driven out and the other lads kept on keeping on, reclaiming the area free from their bull****tery.

    Kinda makes you realise if humans fúcked things up on a global scale, we'd all be gone but the earth would continue on like we never existed.
    Even though we're the most significant development this planet has ever seen, it kind of makes you realise how insignificant we actually are in the grand scheme of things.


  • Options
    #33
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,297 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    It also makes you wonder about the aftermath of nuclear war. Lots of animals died, but some now survive there. The difference would be where'd we care for the abnormal children, they'd be left behind in the wild, and thus the uncaring circle of life continues to the point that those animals not affected by the radiation will live there.


  • Options
    #34
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    the_syco wrote: »
    The difference would be where'd we care for the abnormal children

    I like your optimism.


  • Options
    #35
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users Posts: 12,431 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    the_syco wrote: »
    It also makes you wonder about the aftermath of nuclear war. Lots of animals died, but some now survive there. The difference would be where'd we care for the abnormal children, they'd be left behind in the wild, and thus the uncaring circle of life continues to the point that those animals not affected by the radiation will live there.

    Do you think our natural caring nature would hold back our survival? Would taking care of the sick and wounded damage our chance of survival? In the animal kingdom, the weak get left behind and only the strong and healthy carry on, but the majority of humans wouldn't think like this. I suppose it depends on the severity of the catastrophe but it'd be interesting to see what would happen.


  • Options
    #36
    eyescreamcone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭eyescreamcone


    There is a lot of controversy about how many people died or were affected by the disaster.
    One UN report puts the total dead due to radiation at 64 by 2008.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,297 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Dean09 wrote: »
    Do you think our natural caring nature would hold back our survival?
    Yes, but also it may guarantee it.
    Dean09 wrote: »
    Would taking care of the sick and wounded damage our chance of survival?
    Short term, yes. Long term, though, it may enable us to find out how it effects us, and show us what genes and/or genetic makeup survives.
    Dean09 wrote: »
    In the animal kingdom, the weak get left behind and only the strong and healthy carry on, but the majority of humans wouldn't think like this. I suppose it depends on the severity of the catastrophe but it'd be interesting to see what would happen.
    It would also be worth noting how it effects us mentally; will those effected become mad, or will they be able to function normally. After nuclear war, Darwinism may breed out those that cannot cope in the aftermath, but those that do survive may have a higher tolerance to the radiation.

    For example, consider how white people get skin cancer compared to coloured people; http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm

    In the same way, after nuclear war, it may be discovered that a certain type of people do not bare the same birth defects, and that said people may survive.

    Studies of children from cities that were hit by nukes in Japan are ongoing http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html but it really comes down to how many nukes are used.

    Not many; the stats of Japanese birth defects near those effected cities
    A f**k load; the stats of Chernobyl birth defects

    Hitting a nuclear reactor with a nuclear bomb...? Who knows.


  • Options
    #38
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,297 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    eyescreamcone wrote: »
    There is a lot of controversy about how many people died or were affected by the disaster.
    One UN report puts the total dead due to radiation at 64 by 2008.
    It depends how you class it.

    You could say 64 people, as in 64 people were in the power plant when it blew up, and you'd be correct. You could ignore the hundreds of thousands died after that were sent in to put out the fires by looking at it that way, as they didn't die from the accident itself, but rather died as a result of the radiation that had leaked.

    But, IMO, that'd be unfair to the heroes who died a slow gruesome death after having saved the rest of Europe.


  • Options
    #39
    eyescreamcone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭eyescreamcone


    the_syco wrote: »
    It depends how you class it.

    You could say 64 people, as in 64 people were in the power plant when it blew up, and you'd be correct. You could ignore the hundreds of thousands died after that were sent in to put out the fires by looking at it that way, as they didn't die from the accident itself, but rather died as a result of the radiation that had leaked.

    But, IMO, that'd be unfair to the heroes who died a slow gruesome death after having saved the rest of Europe.

    Read my post again please.
    I said 64 died from radiation BY 2008.
    This is from a UN report.

    It also states that of that 64 - 31 died at the incident. Emergency crew mostly.

    There is no mention anywhere of hundreds of thousands of firefighters dying as a result of putting out fires.


  • Options
    #40
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    eyescreamcone wrote: »
    Read my post again please.
    I said 64 died from radiation BY 2008.
    This is from a UN report.

    It also states that of that 64 - 31 died at the incident. Emergency crew mostly.

    There is no mention anywhere of hundreds of thousands of firefighters dying as a result of putting out fires.

    The real figures on those effected are closer to 1 million. (Premature Deaths) And people are being effected still today. With increased incidents of cancer, heart disease, birth defects, lower than normal intellect and on and on. And all this information is being suppressed by the IAEA which is tied heavily to the nuclear industry.

    Interesting documentary,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bo2A6OvIt8


    One can only wonder how much damage Fukushima nuclear accident is causing right now.


  • Options
    #41
    eyescreamcone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭eyescreamcone


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    The real figures on those effected are closer to 1 million. (Premature Deaths) And people are being effected still today. With increased incidents of cancer, heart disease, birth defects, lower than normal intellect and on and on. And all this information is being suppressed by the IAEA which is tied heavily to the nuclear industry.

    Interesting documentary,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bo2A6OvIt8


    One can only wonder how much damage Fukushima nuclear accident is causing right now.

    I think you should try posting over in Conspiracy Theories ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    previous user
    Registered Users Posts: 1,024 ✭✭✭previous user


    you know the way that journalist died of cancer from exposure, I wonder if thats what's causing a lot of cancer today, fallout from cherynobly?


  • Options
    #43
    Padraig Mor
    Registered Users Posts: 9,544 ✭✭✭Padraig Mor


    eyescreamcone wrote: »
    Read my post again please.
    I said 64 died from radiation BY 2008.
    This is from a UN report.

    It also states that of that 64 - 31 died at the incident. Emergency crew mostly.

    There is no mention anywhere of hundreds of thousands of firefighters dying as a result of putting out fires.

    This. I believe the report (it was WHO actually IIRC) puts total deaths, including premature deaths, at under 100 and projects total early deaths over the next few decades at less than 1000. For all the talk about deformities, there has been no statistically significant rise in congenital deformities since the incident. Aside from those onsite in the immediate aftermath, the greatest physical effect was seen with cases of childhood thyroid cancer, 99% of which are treated effectively. The report states that by far the most severe effect of the incident was psychological, i.e. people in the area feeling they have nothing to live for because they're "contaminated", despite this not actually being true. IIRC radiation levels outside the immediate area are not especially high.


  • Options
    #44
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,297 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    eyescreamcone wrote: »
    There is no mention anywhere of hundreds of thousands of firefighters dying as a result of putting out fires.
    I think you should try posting over in Conspiracy Theories... :pac:

    Seriously, though, anyone that spent more than a few minutes near it would be dead soon after; the human body literally falls apart if the exposure is to long!


  • Options
    #45
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    From the WHO report on Chernobyl:
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index1.html

    (My emphasis added)
    How many people died and how many more are likely to die in the future?
    The total number of deaths already attributable to Chernobyl or expected in the future over the lifetime of emergency workers and local residents in the most contaminated areas is estimated to be about 4000. This includes some 50 emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome and nine children who died of thyroid cancer, and an estimated total of 3940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia among the 200 000 emergency workers from 1986-1987, 116 000 evacuees and 270 000 residents of the most contaminated areas (total about 600 000). These three major cohorts were subjected to higher doses of radiation amongst all the people exposed to Chernobyl radiation.

    The estimated 4000 casualties may occur during the lifetime of about 600 000 people under consideration. As about quarter of them will eventually die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, the radiation-induced increase of about 3% will be difficult to observe. However, in the most highly exposed cohorts of emergency and recovery operation workers, some increase in particular cancers (e.g., leukemia) has already been observed.

    Confusion about the impact has arisen owing to the fact that thousands of people in the affected areas have died of natural causes. Also, widespread expectations of ill health and a tendency to attribute all health problems to radiation exposure have led local residents to assume that Chernobyl related fatalities were much higher than they actually were.

    Simply put, the Chernobyl incident was blown out of all proportion. It was a fairly standard scale industrial accident.
    The final estimated death toll, which I've seen from various WHO reports to be between 4 and 9 thousand ever, is not the amount that have died but the amount that are estimated to die from radiation exposure.

    With millions dying every year from smoking, alcoholism, coronary disease and non-related cancer it's difficult to point to any specific deaths because the number is so small in comparison.

    There are 50 or so directly attributable deaths - radiation exposure to some of those containing the disaster, some cases of cancer.

    There is no evidence of any deformities or heart disease.


  • Options
    #46
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Quote:



    There are two heroes that are rarely ever mentioned Underneath Reactor 4 was a massive water module that was meant to hold waste water from the cooling process. Should the melted radioactive material hit that module, a geothermal explosion would've taken place leveling a 200km radius and sending radiation into the stratosphere and beyond. With the remote system down, two divers went in to open the floodgates.

    They succeeded, but they never returned and they're bodies have never been found."


    That's one of the most amazing things i've read,it's so eerie and poetic. Could you imagine the bravery needed to go down into some toxic pool knowing that you'd never survive it ? It's weird how the world works, you see hollywood movies all the time with soldiers depicted as heros where as these two people who saved thousand by sacrificing themselves are forgotten about.


  • Options
    #47
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Are you the editor of this magazine.? :)
    Err no, I was being sarcastic. As in if people knew how fecked up Chernobyl was, they'd get it hard to sleep. There's areas in Wales still restricted in what they can use their farmland for due to contamination and apparently food from Turkey is not a great idea due to the amount of fallout they received. I wonder just how mant people realise the consequences of a secondary geothermal blast? Which was only narrowly averted, or just how little difference there is between this and Fukushima where they are still relying on surgical masks, white overalls and older voulenteers?


  • Options
    #48
    LivelineDipso
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 510 ✭✭✭LivelineDipso


    watching this shows the psychopathic nature of socialism - humans are just tools to be used.


  • Options
    #49
    padi89
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,478 ✭✭✭padi89


    Dean09 wrote: »
    Kinda makes you realise if humans fúcked things up on a global scale, we'd all be gone but the earth would continue on like we never existed.
    Even though we're the most significant development this planet has ever seen, it kind of makes you realise how insignificant we actually are in the grand scheme of things.

    Mother Nature will always have the last word, i find it humbling.


  • Options
    #50
    tallus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,324 ✭✭✭tallus


    I saw a recent documentary about the animals living and thriving around that area, and the rationale given was that most of them didn't have a sufficient lifespan for the radiation to have a serious effect, IE due to their natural short lifespan, they died before cancer had a chance to develop.


  • Options
    #51
    The Snipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,484 ✭✭✭The Snipe


    krudler wrote: »

    What about the area itself and the deformities people suffered afterwards? I know someone who was there and its meant to be the eeriest place ever, I really wanna go to see how accurate that level from Call Of Duty 4 is :pac:

    Very actually :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    The Snipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,484 ✭✭✭The Snipe


    the_syco wrote: »
    I think you should try posting over in Conspiracy Theories... :pac:

    Seriously, though, anyone that spent more than a few minutes near it would be dead soon after; the human body literally falls apart if the exposure is to long!

    Not true, there is a 100m containment area around reactor no. 4. If you are a scientist you may enter after various medicals, clearance and paperwork. They stay there for a number of hours all the meantime watching giegometres, back when it first happened they could only stay for a few seconds at a time, but now radiation levels are safe to stay for a few hours. Infact, in prypiat, the Rad levels for staying there for a full day is the same as atmospheric radiation you'd get for being on a plain for 8 hours (with exception of pockets, and ammongst vegitation and metals from the time, as they retain and emmit rads a lot more.


Advertisement