Among the IntellectualoidsChernobyl Myths
By Paul Lorenzinihttp://spectator.org/archives/2006/01/23/chernobyl-mythsAccording to findings of the Chernobyl Forum, released in April 2005, misinformation has been the most significant problem for people affected by the accident. A group of more than 100 scientists representing eight United Nations agencies and the governments of Belarus, Ukraine, and the Federation of Russia, the Forum found that most predictions about the accident have been exaggerated. While many had forecast tens and hundreds of thousands of fatalities, it reports a better estimate from among the population of emergency workers and those in the most contaminated areas is around 4,000. The most noticeable effect has been an increase in thyroid cancers among children, with survival rates fortunately greater than 98%. Otherwise, group concludes, there have been no detectable effects of the accident among the general population: no increase in infant mortality, no increase in birth defects, no increase in cancers, and no effects on immune system function that could be linked to radiation from Chernobyl.
Chernobyl was a terrible accident, but no one is served by misrepresenting its consequences. Documentaries distorting the truth pose a more serious problem because they have a stamp of authority and are trusted. Here that trust was betrayed, not just by the Chernobyl Children's Project releasing a documentary with mangled facts, but also by Hollywood granting it an Academy Award with no apparent effort to check them. The Chernobyl Children's Project should be given credit for its charitable work, but its documentary should be criticized rather than applauded. Certainly HBO should pull it from the air, and the National Education Association should discourage its use as an educational aid for the children of America.
I am posting a comment received from
ReplyDeleteTed Rockwell.
Several of you have asked about the Greenpeace Report on Chernobyl, with its million deaths and growing. Here is some information you may not be aware of:
Rebuttal to Greenpeace Chernobyl Report
The facts in this case are simple and straightforward. Surprisingly, the report itself makes it easier for us: it concedes, starting on page 2, and repeatedly thereafter, the case we'd otherwise have to make from inference. The Report says that science does not support the conclusions they reach, and therefore science is wrong. So, that's the case we should address, and not get trapped into arguing trivia.
The report also concedes that the study was "initiated by Greenpeace International," which effectively became the report's editors. Some people think of Greenpeace as a general do-good organization that any green-minded person should support. We should quote from their website, that their mission is to destroy the nuclear industry--bombs, power and presumably everything else (although they don't mention medicine) and shut down permanently all nuclear reactors). We're not saying Greenpeace is a card-carrying agent of Satan; but it is clearly not an impartial seeker of scientific truth.
We have a couple of serious problems in making our case. Greenpeace has a lot more money and brand recognition than we have. And the NY Academy of Sciences paid for the translation of all these reports and is now publishing the Report itself. As a member of NYAS, I've pushed its officers into considering repudiating it. They claim their lawyer won't let them do that, without first setting up a panel of independent scientists to evaluate the report. They have been carrying out this evaluation process for months, but they claim that it's not really an Academy report, they're just making the report available for people to make up their own minds. I say that's nonsense. By publishing the report, they're claiming that it's a valuable document, worthy of scientists' attention. If that's not their policy, it ought to be.
So while Greenpeace touts it as a NYAS report, we should refer to it as a "Greenpeace Report."
I believe that Greenpeace started the project for the purpose of springing "The True Story of Chernobyl" for April 2011, the 25th Anniversary of the meltdown, with the claim that it happened once; it will happen again. And again. That's like using motorcycle accident statistics to predict automobile statistics.
The Report's cost, $150, has kept it mostly unknown up to now. When they start their campaign, Greenpeace could make the Report available at low cost, and its history would look quite authentic.
With help of others, I am preparing a draft of a summary response to the report, and will make it available to whomever wants it. I hope to complete that shortly, and I will make it available as soon as it’s finished. Others can then add additional material as needed.
That's the situation as of now. Keep tuned.
Ted Rockwell
From Ted Rockwell
ReplyDeleteSeveral of you have asked about the Greenpeace Report on Chernobyl, with its million deaths and growing. Here is some information you may not be aware of:
Rebuttal to Greenpeace Chernobyl Report
The facts in this case are simple and straightforward. Surprisingly, the report itself makes it easier for us: it concedes, starting on page 2, and repeatedly thereafter, the case we'd otherwise have to make from inference. The Report says that science does not support the conclusions they reach, and therefore science is wrong. So, that's the case we should address, and not get trapped into arguing trivia.
The report also concedes that the study was "initiated by Greenpeace International," which effectively became the report's editors. Some people think of Greenpeace as a general do-good organization that any green-minded person should support. We should quote from their website, that their mission is to destroy the nuclear industry--bombs, power and presumably everything else (although they don't mention medicine) and shut down permanently all nuclear reactors). We're not saying Greenpeace is a card-carrying agent of Satan; but it is clearly not an impartial seeker of scientific truth.
We have a couple of serious problems in making our case. Greenpeace has a lot more money and brand recognition than we have. And the NY Academy of Sciences paid for the translation of all these reports and is now publishing the Report itself. As a member of NYAS, I've pushed its officers into considering repudiating it. They claim their lawyer won't let them do that, without first setting up a panel of independent scientists to evaluate the report. They have been carrying out this evaluation process for months, but they claim that it's not really an Academy report, they're just making the report available for people to make up their own minds. I say that's nonsense. By publishing the report, they're claiming that it's a valuable document, worthy of scientists' attention. If that's not their policy, it ought to be.
So while Greenpeace touts it as a NYAS report, we should refer to it as a "Greenpeace Report."
I believe that Greenpeace started the project for the purpose of springing "The True Story of Chernobyl" for April 2011, the 25th Anniversary of the meltdown, with the claim that it happened once; it will happen again. And again. That's like using motorcycle accident statistics to predict automobile statistics.
The Report's cost, $150, has kept it mostly unknown up to now. When they start their campaign, Greenpeace could make the Report available at low cost, and its history would look quite authentic.
With help of others, I am preparing a draft of a summary response to the report, and will make it available to whomever wants it. I hope to complete that shortly, and I will make it available as soon as it’s finished. Others can then add additional material as needed.
That's the situation as of now. Keep tuned.
Ted Rockwell