27 Nov
1999
27 Nov
'99
2:44 a.m.
At 11:48 AM 11/27/99 -0800, Daniel A. Seagraves
wrote:
The issue is not one of nuclear power vs fossil fuel (or otherwise). It is
one of mismanagement, disregard, spitefulness (towards the IMF and others,
in paraphrase, "If you don't pay us to shut it down, we won't."), and
the
continued use of poor technology and less-than-marginal safeguards.
The recommendations and subsequent agreement in decision to shut the plant
down was for safety reasons. It was not simply because its sister plant
failed that it was shut down--the fundamental design for operation and
containment are flawed.
It is sad you compare this Soviet-era technology to that of the U.S. or
even other modern installations. The number of casualties in Ukraine
alone are in the thousands for the first months after the accident there.
Well over 150,000 people have now died as a result. This from a single
incident. The numbers are staggering. There are still tens of thousands
of people suffering and dying from thyroid cancer. There are towns for
a hundred miles surrounding the plant that have been evacuated and are
now off-limits. The radiation is still there. The radiation is still
killing people. The radiation will not go away soon. Let's not confuse
a world-wide coal-fueled industry (dare you imply the U.S. of being alone
here) to the Chernobyl installation which has proven design flaws.
Whether the sister reactor had been brought online or not (which I won't
bother going into, since your information is wrong there as well), the fact
remains: they are of the same design and the same generation. The reason
the reactor is being brought online is political. It is not one of dire
necessity. It is purely political, and economic as well. Here again
the callousness towards humanity comes into play. The Soviet Legacy
prevails.
People, if you need to, search the web. Get educated, or at least
informed. The world has forgotten the true nature and impact of the
Chernobyl accident. These innocent dead and dying people don't deserve
to be forgotten and this should not be repeated by arrogance.
I believe the simple act of taking just a few minutes to type into
a web search engine, "chernobyl dead," will elighten people much more
than what they think they know about the issue. The Western press is
infamous for its minimal reporting, and then only when the subject is
current, topical, and fantastic enough to gain readership. You simply
must find out from more than one source and without the Media Fantasy
bias.
Respectfully,
Scott G. Taylor
--
Scott G. Akmentins-Taylor InterNet: staylor(a)mrynet.com
MRY Systems staylor(a)mrynet.lv
(Skots Gregorijs Akmentins-Teilors -- just call me "Skots")
----- Labak miris neka sarkans -----
Slashdot has a link to an MSNBC story about the
Russians restarting reactor
#3 at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine. They need the power but can't
afford a new reactor.
The reactor that had the fire was (and is) irretrievable. The new reactor
was one that was in process to go on line before the disaster and has never
been run.
There are several interesting reports about Chernobyl but perhaps the one
most sobering is that during its time of operation, _including_ the
meltdown, it has generated more power and killed fewer people and done less
harm to the environment than the coal fired plants in Michigan. The damage
those plants have done include dumping so much sulphur and other chemicals
into the air that they have killed vast tracts of forest and made some
lakes and streams completely devoid of life. If you add the number of
people killed in coal mining accidents and getting black lung disease the
numbers are even worse.
Consider it flame bait if you like, but if you run the numbers this country
would be a lot better off (fewer people killed generating the power, fewer
natural resources destroyed) with a nuclear power infrastructure than it
would be with a fossil fuel powered one. 
27 Nov
27 Nov
3:46 p.m.
At 04:44 PM 11/27/99 +0000, Scott G. Akmentins-Taylor wrote:
It is sad you compare this Soviet-era technology to
that of the U.S. or
even other modern installations. The number of casualties in Ukraine
alone are in the thousands for the first months after the accident there.
Well over 150,000 people have now died as a result. This from a single
incident. The numbers are staggering. There are still tens of thousands
of people suffering and dying from thyroid cancer.
I would like to know the source of your numbers. According to a very complete
report in the November 1996 issue of IEEE Spectrum, which relied heavily
in the data issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World
Health Organization, and the European Community (which have all been
sponsoring periodic conferences just for the purpose of getting hard
numbers on this subject), you are off by almost two orders of magnitude
when you say "150,000 people". To quote from the report:
"The incidence of thyroid cancer has risen far more than expected among
infants and even children still in the womb who were in the
most contaminated zones right after the accident. "
"There is as yet no significant rise in leukemia among the inhabitants of
those same zones or among the emergency workers and
evacuees hit by the highest initial doses of radiation. "
"Perhaps most widespread are psychosomatic illnesses--even in not-too-
contaminated areas, there has been a large upswing in
stress-related physical ailments, notably stomach and autoimmune
disorders. In fact, morbidity and mortality due to such disorders
may well in the end exceed sicknesses and deaths caused by radiation. "
9158
days inactive
9158
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
cem14＠cornell.edu -
classiccmp＠mrynet.com