• craftrabbit@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    I feel like this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. You should compare Chernobyl to Fukushima and 3 mile island. All of these accidents involved gross incompetence, but the incompetence at Chernobyl was the grossest for any large nuclear disaster in history.

  • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 days ago

    Bhopal was in the news for a while. It was the lead story on the nightly news for at least a week. I think nuclear accidents have more staying power due to fear of the unknown. The movie The China Syndrome came out a few years before and many thought they were witnessing the end of the world.

  • Frostbeard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Everyone working with the seveso directive in the EU/EEA. Its widely more know than the poster give credit for among the technical side of the regulators

  • btsax@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 days ago

    Chernobyl could be argued to be worse, at least from a theory perspective, because in an idealized Soviet/Communist system where the working classes are actually looking out for worker interests, the plant operators would have known about RBMK reactor flaws (and probably also would have built a containment building like Western reactors have) which likely would have prevented the disaster. At some point there was some breakdown for whatever reason that prevented this. On the other hand, at Bhopal, there was essentially no hope of worker control at all because it’s built within a capitalist system. Profit at the expense of lives is the expected outcome in this system.

    tl;dr, it would be nice to see Communists et. al. hold their societies to a higher standard than simply not being as statistically bad as capitalism

  • boaratio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    7 days ago

    I give up, you guys win. There is no source of actual truth, we’re all fucked. Truth is just an illusion. Facts don’t matter any more.

  • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    7 days ago

    Non-capitalist propaganda is also effective, I don’t see what this has to do with socialism.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 days ago

      Mistakes in socialist countries are magnified and mythologized, while mistakes in capitalist countries are erased and whitewashed.

  • sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    184
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Yeah I like the sentiment, but no Chernobyl absolutely did not have such a small effect. Minimizing these things, especially when so well known, just fucks up our position. Reality denial isn’t an effective way to advocate or to make people aware of the horrors of capitalism. All it does is train the average person to assume left wing points are childishly exaggerated. This is, in part, why capitalist propaganda is so easy.

    Here we just accept the official number and ignore all other effects. If we took the same path with the Bhopaal disaster, we’d have to ignore all the non-fatal poisonings and believe uncritically the official instant death count of just over 2,200 ignoring any deaths to come afterwards. That would be stupid

    Chernobyl was a terrible disaster that harmed an absurd amount of people, de-homed thousands, and damaged the ecosystem of the wider area. Its effects and danger are still present to this day and could have been much, much worse if not for the work of those who fixed the massive fuck up.

    Both the Bhopal disaster and the Chernobyl disaster were bred by incompetence, corruption, and a general failure to care for the worker and the general population.

    Now, if we were to keep a leaderboard, capitalism wins by many miles in the awfulness department. That’s the note we should take, that’s the drum we should beat.

    It wasn’t socialism that caused Chernobyl. If the workers, those who built and conceived of the soviet nuclear reactors, were in charge they would have put in the safe guards they advocated for well before this disaster. They were not allowed to and the consequence was a meltdown. That’s why we should give the power to the worker. The Bhopal disaster? Capital was the determiner for who had power, and those in power caused the disaster. It was the fault of capitalism as capitalism was allowed to build Union Carbide with little in its way.

    Edit: Changed Russian to soviet, re-aranged paragraphs, added clarity

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Critically, the working classes were in charge of Chernobyl. Their mistakes were mistakes made by workers. The worker is not infallible.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      If the workers, those who built and conceived of the soviet nuclear reactors, were in charge they would have put in the safe guards they advocated for well before this disaster. They were not allowed to and the consequence was a meltdown. That’s why we should give the power to the worker.

      if this can’t happen in a communist nation, what hope is there for any other worker?

      • boaratio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        33
        ·
        8 days ago

        Russia was never communist. They were a dictatorship dressed up in communist clothing. If the workers ever controlled the means of production in a nation, I’d love to hear about it.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          7 days ago

          The working classes were the dictators of production and distribution in the USSR, production was collectively owned and democratically planned.

        • eldavi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          that’s a fascinating take; what makes you believe this?

            • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 days ago

              The USSR during Stalins time was a dictatorship masquerading as communism.

              Moldy cold war propaganda is moldy.

          • boaratio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            7 days ago

            I don’t want to be the guy arguing on the Internet, but just read the Wikipedia article on communism here. When the Russian people toppled their last monarch, they never actually went full communism.

            • eldavi@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              7 days ago

              Wikipedia

              this explains a lot about why you believe this.

              would you still believe wikipedia if i shared freedom of information act releases that directly contradict wikipedia? (the releases also contradict npr, cnn, cbs, bbc, etc.)

              • boaratio@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                7 days ago

                If you think Wikipedia is biased, then I have nothing further to say to you. Enjoy OAN, News Max, Fox News, and all that other right wing horse shit. Wikipedia is community consensus. It’s the only place I get my “news” from.

                • eldavi@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  yes, wikipedia is community consensus and community consensus once was that iraq had wmd’s – the foia proved otherwise. consensus isn’t truth; it’s just the most popular opinion at the time.

                  the foia gives you what the us government tries to hide. it is literally the us government itself being legally forced to share its secrets to the american public because of a law that was passed decades before the us gov’t became fully captured by corporate interests and the epstein class.

    • wizzor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 days ago

      The chernobyl disaster also had the chance to be much, much worse than it was. The only reason it wasn’t worse was the sacrifices of the people.

    • Malyca@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      My dad had just gotten me a hamster and we fed it lettuce that was affected. Fuckers killed my hamster. I’m just glad I didn’t eat it I guess. Poor little guy, I was heartbroken.

    • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 days ago

      https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife

      The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone has become a haven for wildlife, with species such as lynx, bison, and deer thriving in the area due to the absence of human activity for over three decades. This has led to a richer forest ecosystem and increased biodiversity, making it one of the largest nature reserves in mainland Europe.

      Also even if you take the most exaggerated numbers about Chernobyl and Fukushima combined, it’s still just something we should just ignore. It was a small blip. Per megawatthour produced, nuclear energy is still by far the safest energy, safer than solar (because people fall off of roofs).

      Instead you’re not just resisting, you’re actually angrily rebuking and scolding OP’s attempt to put these two catastrophes into perspective. You apply a double standard to how factually accurate a shitpost has to be vs the global capitalist propaganda machine.

      Capitalist propaganda is effective.

  • Weydemeyer@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    The other one I like to compare is: in the decades that the Berlin Wall - the ultimate symbol of eeeevil gommunist authoritian totalitarianism - existed, fewer people were killed attempting to cross the wall than were murdered by a single US bomb that landed on a girls’ school in Iran in a single day.

    I do not know the number of Palestinians that have been murdered by the IOF just for approaching the intentionally vague “yellow line” since the “ceasefire” months ago, but I’m certain it’s higher than the Berlin Wall fatalities.

    • Napster153@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 days ago

      Children are currently 50 percent of the population in the Gaza strip if I’m correct. That should tell you more than enough how bad things are.

      Israel is testament to how the West fooled everyone.

    • teuniac_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 days ago

      I’m seeing numbers between 140 and 327 people having been killed at the Berlin wall and 153 people at the girls’ school. That that’s besides the point.

      I’d say that suffering isn’t measured in fatalities, neither is mortality. Groups can be oppressed resulting in enormous suffering, but with relatively few fatalities as a result. See for example the Taliban and women. There is also the factor of intentionality. The US likely didn’t intentionally bomb a school, but the wall was carefully designed.

      Nonetheless, the reason the Iran war started is of course exceptionally dumb than compared to the other wars that the US started. So your point probably still stands. Sacrificing lives for petty reasons is evil.

  • borQue@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    in the end estimated 50-60.000 people died from cancer related to Chernobyl.

    • Arlaerion@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      The estimate of 50,000–60,000 Chernobyl cancer deaths is a widely cited, worst-case projection, but it is crucial to understand that this figure is not a factual count. It is a theoretical calculation derived from the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, a framework that is fundamentally flawed and inappropriate for assessing the health impact of low-dose radiation exposure.

      • 29 relief workers died from Acute Radiation Sickness (ARS) shortly after the accident.
      • As of 2005, only fewer than 50 deaths were directly linked to the radiation exposure from the accident itself. This is the most solid figure based on actual evidence.
    • Arlaerion@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      Again, because my other comment is not visible to many of you:

      The estimate of 50,000–60,000 Chernobyl cancer deaths is a widely cited, worst-case projection, but it is crucial to understand that this figure is not a factual count. It is a theoretical calculation derived from the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, a framework that is fundamentally flawed and inappropriate for assessing the health impact of low-dose radiation exposure.

      • 29 relief workers died from Acute Radiation Sickness (ARS) shortly after the accident.
      • As of 2005, only fewer than 50 deaths were directly linked to the radiation exposure from the accident itself. This is the most solid figure based on actual evidence.
    • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      A total of up to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

      As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

      The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, “Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts,” just released by the Chernobyl Forum. The digest, based on a three-volume, 600-page report and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident in history. The Forum is made up of 8 UN specialized agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and the World Bank, as well as the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

      https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/chernobyl-true-scale-accident

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        The point isn’t that Chernobyl was more dangerous. The point is that the tweet isn’t being honest.

        • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 days ago

          You can’t see the other reply so:

          A total of up to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

          As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

          The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, “Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts,” just released by the Chernobyl Forum. The digest, based on a three-volume, 600-page report and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident in history. The Forum is made up of 8 UN specialized agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and the World Bank, as well as the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

          https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/chernobyl-true-scale-accident

          The other reply that you can’t see:

          The tweet is being honest. The Numbers are correct.

          If interested: The Rational View podcast with Dr. Al Scott: Gerry Thomas and the UNSCEAR reports

          Link to episode: https://therationalview.podbean.com/e/gerry-thomas-and-the-unscear-reports/

          Link to media: https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/r8t8zh/TRV-GerryThomas.mp3

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            You didn’t see my reply elsewhere in the thread. The tweet is dishonest because it’s deliberately excluding the deaths from long term health issues in the Chernobyl while including them in the Bhopal numbers.

            I already figured out for myself that Chernobyl was still less deadly than Bhopal and I never claimed otherwise.

            • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 days ago

              Maybe I’m interpreting things wrong but the study is counting the long term health issues in the 50 total deaths, 20 years after the accident is long term no?

              • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                I got lost in the sauce a bit. The tweet is still comparing different statics. Chernobyl had less then 100 deaths in the first year, but thousands more deaths from cancer in the following year. Those were excluded from mention.

                Bhopal had 16,000 deaths in the first year and 500,000 “nonfatally poisoned” casualties. Those almost certainty lead to premature deaths and if we’re including those, we also need to be including the long term cancer deaths from Chernobyl.

                • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  The study is saying that the projection is 4k but they can only attribute with confidence 50 death related with the disaster.

                  many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

                  Late as 2004 is saying that they are counting the following years

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        Literally whataboutism

        The point is the OP screenshot being disingenuous.

        Your point can also be true

      • Spawn7586@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        I mean what about ww2? All terrible disasters, but the concept was “chernobyl was not small made bigger by capitalism for fearmongering, it was huge all along”. Then we can also discuss how terrible and how many victims capitalism brought, just don’t base it on a lie or you’ll just loose the trust of other people. Whataboutism doesn’t help either, you are deflecting when you already have a lot of other potential arguments. Be better.

          • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 days ago

            Every year ~10 million people starve to death or die of easily preventable disease. These deaths are directly attributable to capitalism, as the global system of economics and distribution. It simply isn’t profitable to the capitalists to prevent these deaths.

            So your number is way short. Every ten years capitalism kills 100 million just from starvation and disease.