Comment by dublinclontarf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dublinclontarf | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Wow is that conspiracy theory talk, you have any facts to back that up?

We have endless reports from international agencies. Cover-up? I doubt it. Ukraine and Belarus want aid and help, have no interest in covering up, and it’s difficult to believe in an international nuclear industry driven cover-up taking in all those UN agencies.

What did these agencies say? Read for yourself,

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/IAEA_Pub1239...

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/chernobyl_di...

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594179_eng.pd...

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pd...

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2005/ebsp2005n008....

and so on, the list really is endless, you can click through for hours.

What is this "large body of evidence" you speak of? It would be nice to have some reports by reputable scientists but all you've done is spew conspiracy hystaria.

Ugh, just for the historical record: no, it is not "conspiracy theory talk". It's the simple observation that without reasonably accurate data, valid analysis cannot be done. We don't have most of the data pertaining to Chernobyl, and we never will. That is mainly because the USSR was a totalitarian state with rigorous information control systems, and it didn't like to be embarrassed by its nuclear oopsie-daisy.

Good scientists--those of the WHO included--do their best with what data they have, and don't make claims that can't be backed up by data. Because there isn't enough data to support it, there will never be a comprehensive scientific analysis of the real impact of the Chernobyl event... at least until we get some kind of time machine tech.

Until then, you can't KNOW the impact of Chernobyl. Sorry, but you just have to GUESS. I realize that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but that's how life works a lot of the time.

So my point wasn't "I know the real Chernobyl outcome in its entirety! It was baaaaad, man!" It was, "nobody knows the real Chernobyl outcome; we only know some partial results that we've been able to piece together, mostly many years after the fact from inconsistent data." (And that my personal hunch is that there was probably a lot of negative impact to humans which could not be captured in reports such as the ones you cite.)

How are you going to have facts when they were destroyed?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com