Let’s challenge these myths of Chernobyl

The tragic irony of the Chernobyl accident is that it was caused by a safety test on one of the four reactors. There was concern about what would happen if external power supplies to the plant were cut. The pumps supplying the huge amounts of water that were needed to keep the reactors cool might stop, and safety officials had noted that the diesel pumps that provided backup power could not get up to speed quickly enough, leaving a dangerous one-minute gap ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Stats Help
# Tweets: 6 (as of 2010-06-08)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - Jun 8, 2010 - 7:18 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kaizar Campwala - Jun 8, 2010 - 7:22 AM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Jon Mitchell
3.2
by Jon Mitchell - Jun. 8, 2010

There are a lot of interesting details and convincing arguments here in favor of a revised history of Chernobyl, but the logical extension to a rapid, worldwide expansion of nuclear power is not as clearly made.

See Full Review » (10 answers)
David Agnew
1.5
by David Agnew - Mar. 31, 2011

The author claims "As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster" as if radiation leaves a calling card when it causes cancer - it doesn't. He ignores the foremost expert on radiation health effects, John Gofman, who estimated that Chernobyl would cause in one million cancers, half of them fatal (this is over many years, for many of the radionuclides spread around the globe have very long half-lives. Because there is no safe dose of radiation, any dose will increase cancer incidence - if the dose is spread over a large population, a small increase in incidence can cause many cancers. Mr. Lyons is not persuasive as he reassures us that the Chernobyl "explosion itself ... More »

the lesson to be learned is not that nuclear power is inherently dangerous More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Sirajul Islam
3.6
by Sirajul Islam - Jun. 9, 2010

It is interesting to know the story largely untold. The re-telling the story has an agenda not solidly established. Anyway, is is a good initiative to make points for Nuclear energy option

See Full Review » (18 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
3.9
by Kaizar Campwala - Jun. 8, 2010

Lyons offers a compelling argument that the Chernobyl disaster isn't the demon some of made it out to be (though I haven't really seen too much demonization of the accident in current debate anyway).

See Full Review » (10 answers)
Roland F. Hirsch
4.1
by Roland F. Hirsch - Jun. 8, 2010

This news analysis is excellent journalism. The author provides factual information, and discusses unscientific claims about Chernobyl that have come up over the years and the evidence against them. The latter part of the piece is specific to the U.K., but that portion is of general interest, too..

See Full Review » (11 answers)
fontleroy
2.0
by fontleroy - Jun. 10, 2010

O.K. I'm not a fan of nuclear energy so that's my disclaimer. My question is: Has Rob Lyons ever been to Chernobyl? No I didn't think so. Does that mean unless you visit the place you write about your opinion shouldn't be considered. But let's face it, this is OPINION, not fact, not journalism. It is disingenuous to continually claim that "nuclear energy is low carbon." This is not a supportable claim and the mining of uranium is one of the most polluting industries there is. There are documentaries that describe in detail the cancers of the people who live around Chernobyl who could not afford to go somewhere else to live. Some of those folks are still alive, but many have passed from cancer. The article is shameless ... More »

See Full Review » (4 answers)

Comments on this story (1)Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.2

Average
from 7 reviews (68% confidence)
Quality
3.2
Facts
3.0
Fairness
3.0
Information
3.4
Insight
3.3
Style
3.3
Accuracy
3.0
Balance
3.0
Context
3.4
Depth
3.0
Enterprise
4.0
Expertise
3.2
Originality
3.2
Relevance
3.0
Transparency
2.0
Responsibility
2.8
Popularity
3.1
Recommendation
3.1
Credibility
2.5
# Reviews
3.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

  • The nuclear option is back on the table

    For 30 years Sweden stood proudly at the forefront of the world's antinuclear movement. Now, in one of the clearest signs of a nuclear-power renaissance sweeping the globe, ...
    Posted by Kaizar Campwala
  • Films on Science: Finland’s 100,000-Year Plan to Banish Its Nuclear Waste

    Onkalo, a tunnel that will hold spent fuel rods 1,600 feet under bedrock in Eurajoki, Finland, is the subject of the documentary “Into Eternity.”
    Posted by Alexander Rose
  • The Case For and Against Nuclear Power

    Interest in nuclear power is heating up, as the hunt intensifies for "green" alternatives to fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. But the issue is far from settled.
    Posted by Beth Wellington
  • Obama's nuclear policy takes one step forward and two steps back

    (Blog Post) Obama has recently taken one step toward a nuclear free world, and two steps away from it. First, the forward step. Last week, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ...
    Posted by Beth Wellington
  • John Gofman' Chernobyl health effects estimate Pending

    Posted by David Agnew
  • Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 X-Powered-By: X-Runtime: 1.15869 Status: 500 Internal Server Error Cache-Control: private, max-age=0, must-revalidate ETag: "433b0781a478ae9987ad1d3d634146e4" Content-Length: 10900 Your Guide to Good Journalism - NewsTrust.net

    We're sorry, but something went wrong.

    We've been notified about this issue and we'll take a look at it shortly.