Author Topic: Chernobyl Heart (Read 2349 times)

Raider179 · « **Reply #45 on:** March 15, 2005, 07:30:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
Cod I hate to stand up for a tool like Boroda but he may be right about the deformed babies.
Just google "chernobyl and deformed babies" and you will find alot of information that says the only deformed babies were from pregnant women working on site and that the documentaries of deformed babies was misleading at best.

You are joking right?

Through direct exposure from the atmosphere and indirect exposure through the food chain, children in the Chernobyl area received a dose of radiation 40 times above permissible levels. The number of incidences of thyroid cancer is up 3000 per cent and it is estimated that over the next 15-20 years over 40,000 children in Belarus will contract the disease.

In Belarus cancer of the thyroid is so prevalent that the scar left after a thyroid operation is now chillingly referred to as a Belarussian Necklace, thus marking them forever as Chernobyl's victims.

Since the disaster there has also been an increase of 800% in the incidence of cancers in children living near to the reactor plus there has been a dramatic increase in the rate of babies born with substantial physical disabilities. Babies born limbless, deformed and with severe brain damage.

There are so many other radiation related health crises occurring in the region that for the first time in Belarussian history , the death rate is HIGHER, than the birth rate.

Treatment of disease is difficult in Belarus due to the lack of proper medication and equipment. The breakdown of the countries infrastructure, both politically and economically has caused inflation to rise at a rapid rate. Western goods are available in the shops but at prices well beyond the spending limit of the average Belarussian. Even simple medicines like aspirin and antibiotics are only available on the black market and most drugs are virtually non-existent due to their soaring cost. Recent research show that over 90% of children suffer from vitamin deficiency and many die through the lack of proper treatment that can be afforded to them.

In excess of 80,000 children have very little hope in life due to a disaster of someone else's making. Our aim is to relieve this suffering.

http://www.focc.org.uk/children.htm

Guess this one depends on your definition of deformity. But it seems these kids have a way higher than average chance of dying young. To me that is a definite deformity.

Estel · « **Reply #46 on:** March 17, 2005, 12:00:02 PM »

At 1990 in summer I worked in pioneer camp in Moscow region. That summer we took into camp kids from Novozybkov city, near Chernobyl zone. All of them were screened by doctors in Moscow before. So. Nobody of them had symptoms of radiology health problems. Also I talked to their leader. He was about 32-35 years old that time. And he worked in local medical biological laboratory. So all special blood tests came via his hands. He said, that after 1986 till 1990 they found only 4 (four) examples of radiology based cancer. And 3 of them was people who worked on reactor after the blast. How do you think, is it too big count or no?

I understand, that we should stay an "Evil empire" in the yeas of western people. And were did you see an evil empire without tons of bodies and deformed mutants? Western mass-media created this thing shortly after april 1986. And they showed one of these mutants on TV. They said something like: "Look at this kid - the product of exposure and evilness communism wich can not protect it's own citizens"! If you looked TV that time, you must remember it. But only one problem...... The kid was born at december 1985. From alcoholics parents. But I afraid you wasn't interested in that. You needed evil empire.

We can have a very long discuss about Chernobyl. But. If you want to know truth you must go there and ask people who live there. But not your TV.

Boroda · « **Reply #47 on:** March 17, 2005, 12:12:46 PM »

I trace all this russophobic horror stories at least to Seven Years War , when every German knew that evil Cossacks eat European shildren for brerakfast and without salt.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #48 on:** March 17, 2005, 12:44:17 PM »

Well goody, now that we've discovered that russian radiation is in no way harmful to anyone, by all means do some more experiments with the reactors. All those fools that for years fought against nuclear power or made research to make it safer.

All useless.. It won't hurt anyone if a reactor blows up. At least if it has 'made in russia' written all over it.

Boroda · « **Reply #49 on:** March 17, 2005, 12:57:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Well goody, now that we've discovered that russian radiation is in no way harmful to anyone, by all means do some more experiments with the reactors. All those fools that for years fought against nuclear power or made research to make it safer.

All useless.. It won't hurt anyone if a reactor blows up. At least if it has 'made in russia' written all over it.

Let's wait until US of A will prohibit any other "undemocratic" nation to use electricity - it will solve the problem of nuclear power completely.

JFYI: in the 80s over 60% of electricity in France was produced by nuclear power stations. Another fact: first nuclear power station was open in Obninsk, USSR, in 1954. Nuclear power stations in fact produce less radiation and radioactive isotopes then conventional coal power stations.

I get more and more evidence that you live in another world, with different physics, biology, history and mathematics. Listening to you is almost as nice as reading good sci-fi novel about aleiens from a different universe.

Do you have background radiation levels declared with weather forecast? Do you run to the shelter every time it's two times above ordinary level?

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #50 on:** March 17, 2005, 01:28:22 PM »

Quote

Nuclear power stations in fact produce less radiation and radioactive isotopes then conventional coal power stations.

Isn't that just what I said? There was no radiation leaked in Chernobyl. The russian magic rays kept it all safely inside.

Boroda · « **Reply #51 on:** March 17, 2005, 01:39:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Isn't that just what I said? There was no radiation leaked in Chernobyl. The russian magic rays kept it all safely inside.

Check the ammounts of radioactive isotopes released into atmosphere after burning of one ton of coal. Think about it.

Your habit of putting words into my mouth gets annoying. An obvious compensation for lack of education and common sence.

I advise you to light splinters in the evening and avoid electricity - it will probably stop nuclear technology from spreading.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #52 on:** March 17, 2005, 01:42:14 PM »

I'm getting annoying? What are you going to do, attack me and throw me into a gulag? I know it's a century old tradition down there to all nay-sayers.

After all this talk you've revealed your true nature. And then you wonder why people consider you're a part of the evil empire.

Estel · « **Reply #53 on:** March 17, 2005, 03:29:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Isn't that just what I said? There was no radiation leaked in Chernobyl. The russian magic rays kept it all safely inside.

Can you make difference between direct exposure and radioactive products in the air? There was no nuclear blast. There was termical blast. The most part of radioactives was in 5 km. circle. I'll write it in russian and ask Boroda to translate it. I don't know english so good to write it myself.

Angus · « **Reply #54 on:** March 21, 2005, 07:07:04 AM »

Can't remember a large area anywhere being evacuated swiftly on long term because of coal radioactivity Boroda.
Bur seriously, how large is that area and when will it be inhabitable again?

Rolex · « **Reply #55 on:** March 21, 2005, 07:58:12 AM »

At the risk of being pummeled to death, it's time to clear some of the air here.

1. If you disassociate yourself from all political positions previously or currently embraced or presented by Boroda, he is factually correct. He never said anything so preposterous as there was no radiation leak, or that it is good for anyone. That is blatant misrepresentation or stupidity.

His issue was birth defects.

Widespread congenital birth defects in subsequent generations did not occur, as it did not occur in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In-vitro exposure did, and does, cause birth defects. The same is true of chemical exposures such as those caused by massive and continured exposure to dioxin as found in Agent Orange and heavy metal exposures such as Mercury and Nickel.

Continued exposure during formative years have also increased the cancer rate dramatically. These are not birth defects, they are exposure effects.

The 1950s Cold War propoganda about extensive, multi-generational, mutational, genetic damage to humans was not true. Just like the propoganda that exposed areas would be barren of life for tens of thousands of years. There is plenty of life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And no beastly genetic mutations like in the Hollywood movies.

2. How many people have died from the incident, or will have a shortened life expectancy, will always be questioned and defined differently. I don't know if anyone will really know.

3. Will it ever be cleaned up? The scale of exposure and lack of money to do it will probably yield an answer of, 'No.' It is cheaper to isolate than to clean it up. It is just as true in small scales as large.

You can pound away at his political beliefs, but he is not wrong about birth defects in subsequent generations. Exposure effects abound, though.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #56 on:** March 21, 2005, 08:50:13 AM »

Some of you need to read "The Plutonium Files". It would change your outlook on the "harmlessness of Radiation". The US govt. injected almost 50 people with "harmless radiation". I don't want to spoil to much.

Karaya

PS - You CANNOT compare the WWII bombs with Chernobyl. Two different styles and methods (i.e. WWII it was in it's infancy and Chernobyl it was definately more refined).

Boroda · « **Reply #57 on:** March 21, 2005, 01:10:30 PM »

To Rolex - thank you.

Estel told me a great story of a "deformed baby"-mutant, filmed by Western journalists in 1986. An eye-opening story. If he lets me - I'll try to tell it here.

Masherbrum, if you don't see a difference between an atomic bomb and a nuclear reactor meltdown - then you still have many interesting things to learn...

BTW, you can google for "Chinese syndrome" and "Tree-mile island", may be interesting for you.

Raider179 · « **Reply #58 on:** March 21, 2005, 01:27:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
Exactly.

"Deformed babies" have nothing to do with Chernobyl. Alcoholism is responsible for 1000 times more "deformed babies" then radiation.

I am very sceptic about the above-mentioned "documentary" because the department I worked in, here, in Biochemical Physics Institute, RAS, studied Chernobyl consequences from medical point of view. No "deformed babies" so far.

Here is the deformed babies quote. I believe it says "DEFORMED BABIES" HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH CHERNOBYL.

That is false. As rolex pointed out women who were pregnant did infact have deformed kids.

Here is another quote from him about it...

"Our department studied huge load of data collected there, and it is watched closely still. Sorry, no "deformed babies". It's up to you - if you want to believe in this crap. "

And another....

Again: I worked in a department here in Biochemical Physics Institute, Russian Academy of Science, that analyzed statistics on medical consequences of Chermobyl. So it goes. Sorry, no "deformed babies".

Sorry Rolex but I see nothing in his posts that says "subsequent generations"... Those are your words not his. He is adament about media propaghanda and "No Deformed babies". Which there were even if they were exposure and not later dna mutations.

Estel · « **Reply #59 on:** March 21, 2005, 01:48:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
To Rolex - thank you.

Estel told me a great story of a "deformed baby"-mutant, filmed by Western journalists in 1986. An eye-opening story. If he lets me - I'll try to tell it here.

Yes sure, it's not and it wasn't classified.