[ RadSafe ] Chernobyl's Reduced Impact

[John Jacobus]

Mike,
I do not think that "radiation-related fears led to
depression, alcohol abuse, unemployment, and other
tangible damage to real human beings" is true.  I
think that the displacement of large numbers of
people, loss of home and income, and government
ineptitude lead to the depression, etc.

Again, watch for the same results in people displaced
by Hurricane Katrina.

--- "Stabin, Michael"
<michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu> wrote:

> --- Stabin, Michael
> <michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu> wrote:
> > The last paragraph is interesting, especially
> considering the source.
> 
> -----John Jacobus [crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> >Do you mean because the source is the NY Times?  
> 
> 
> Yes, I did. In the US, there has been a general (I
> know, not strict)
> trend for liberal media outlets (of which the NY
> Times is inarguably one
> of the leading examples) to be anti-nuclear. Now we
> see Greens and some
> liberal groups saying pro-nuclear or at least more
> neutral things. To
> hear the NY Times say that risks from radiation
> exposure from Chernobyl
> are "greatly exaggerated" is quite remarkable in my
> opinion. The idea,
> that many of us have been espousing here for years,
> that radiation risks
> are only one set of risks to be considered in the
> overall context of
> life, is quite correct and to be applauded, in my
> opinion. We all know
> that there were many unnecessary abortions performed
> because of not very
> remarkable radiation doses received as a result of
> this accident. Now,
> the allegation that radiation-related fears led to
> depression, alcohol
> abuse, unemployment, and other *tangible damage to
> real human beings*
> (as compared to theoretical risks to theoretical
> human beings) is
> perhaps a breakthrough! The suggestion that this be
> a factor considered
> in responding to future radiation-related
> emergencies is quite
> interesting.
> 
> BTW, I read both Fox News and the NY Times, among
> other sources, most
> days. Sometimes I post stuff here from Fox, and have
> gotten some private
> mail criticizing their perceived biases. I find Fox
> to be much less
> biased than many news outlets, and particularly less
> so than the Times.
> I love the Times for its quality, but its biases are
> inescapable. We can
> have more discussions about news bias in general off
> line, I suggest. If
> it pertains to coverage of radiation issues, we
> might continue it here.
> 
> 
> Mike

+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com