Comments by "" (@stevenwiederholt7000) on "Do We Have to Destroy the Earth to Save It? | 5 Minute Video" video.
-
@the_bane_of_all_anti_furry
Got some bad news for ya buddy about Chernobyl
An evening with Michael Crichton
https://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?id=111#2
(Snip)
"These are the low estimates of immediate Chernobyl deaths as a consequence of the actual incident, and you see here the UPI in 1986, at the time of the disaster, predicted that there would be 2,000 immediate deaths. The New York Post thought there would be 16,000. The Canadian Broadcasting Company in ’91 thought there would be that many, and you see the BBC and The New York Times in 2002 predicting at the low end 15,000 deaths. Their estimates were 15,000 to 30,000 deaths.
Now, there was a UN commission in 2000 that suggested that the catastrophe was nowhere near that proportion, and as you can see, the next UN commission in 2005 doesn’t really show up on the graph, because the total numbers are 56.
Now, to report that 15,000 to 30,000 people are dead when the actual number is 56 represents a very large error."
(Snip)
"But of course, you’re probably thinking, we’re talking about radiation. What about long-term consequences? Unfortunately for the media, their reports are even less accurate here. Here you see CNN in 1996 was predicting future Chernobyl-related illness and death in a large swath that would go from Sweden to the Baltic to the Black Sea. It estimated three and a half million. The BBC, much more conservatively, estimated 50,000. Agence Press thought half a million. The Ukrainian Victim’s Group in 2002 estimated 150,000. The UN commission in 2005 decided that there would be about 4,000. That’s the number of Americans who die of adverse drug reactions in this country every six weeks. Again, a huge error."
(Snip)
5
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1