Comments on: Nuclear Nightmares

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:15:00 +0000

Bummer, the video’s no longer available.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:56:00 +0000

Having read some of the comments below, it seems to me that your only justifying the blurb when it says ‘the fear of radioactivity, is widespread and yet not based on scientific evidence.’ You talk about questioning the information we receive, how about questioning the scare mongering we’ve received from the media? Funnily enough a paper declaring evil scientists are trying to give us all radioactive poisoning sells a fair few more copies than one saying ‘hey we have a relatively old, well investigated form of energy production, yes it still has flaws like the archaic forms of energy generation we use today but it is eventually going to be one of our only economically/logistically viable options’
I am not saying Nuclear Power is perfect, in a perfect world we would be able to run the world off renewable energies, there’d be no waste products or excess CO2 but unfortunately that’s not the case.
Fossil fuels will run out, its an inevitability, renewable energy can simply not fill the energy deficit they will leave behind.
Currently the only energy generation technology capable of filling it’s shoes is Nuclear Power.
I’m a Physics student and have studied aspects of Nuclear Power, I have listened to lectures by much cleverer people than probably you and definitely I, who ardently support Nuclear Power. They have very little financial gain in the concept of the Nuclear Renaissance and I’m fairly confident they’re not on a crusade to give us all cancer.
Mistakes have been made, and disasters such as Chernobyl should be neither down played nor ignored, but they also should not be used to hinder progress.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 23 May 2011 02:16:00 +0000

Scientists have also shown that genetic mutation in smaller mammals reduces in each succesive generation. How many generations of these small creatures had passed, since the incident, to their capture and testing?
This documentary didnt actually cut the throats of those Chernobyl children, the doctors did in a bid to cure them of thyroid cancer (thousands of them!) is the BBC going to compensate them?
Peter, Tokyo, Japan (post Fukishima incident) 24/05/11

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:49:00 +0000

Agnotology: culturally induced ignorance or doubt.
The tobacco lobbies were among the first to use such methods

By: jj

jj — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:06:18 +0000

this is frightening propaganda. this is a documentary to trick people into letting their government build nuclear power plants. the incidence of congential birth defects and cancers in and around chernobyl has increased by 10,000 percent since 1986.

By: JK

JK — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 04:36:01 +0000

Hello Reba, could you please share your source? I also believe that’s a high number. Thanks

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:12:01 +0000

To Cassiopeia, of course that site will say its not as big of a deal as the people of Chernobyl and the surrounding areas would say. That article is put out by the people in charge of these nuclear plants and what not, they will lose their reputation and possibly their jobs if they didnt fix the results and lied about the situation.

By: Borsuk

Borsuk — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:25:29 +0000

In that single case you could see more of downplaying a problem on the side of western nuclear agencies than Soviets alone… I was 9 and living in Poland back then-about 500 kilometers from Chernobyl and despite all of the communist propaganda these matters were treated very seriously. Once the scale of the disaster was realised, after about 3 days all of children/students(including me) were given iodum and people were warned to stay indoors. Mind you all westerners, back then in eastern europe the military was playing a key role in goverments in the region.

If someone knew anything about threats of nuclear contamination, it would be them. Also, letting people know about disaster was accepting a failure- with huge political consequences. The risk was taken-means situation was critical.

It`s an interesting coincidence that such documentary is being released just as UK announces it`s future energy strategy based mainly on nuclear power. Don`t get me wrong- I`m not against atomic energy, but downplaying the consequences of Chernobyl like that is a crime against people`s inteligence and asking for another, even bigger one. Russians didn`t open any new nuclear powerplant since then-guess why?

Btw here`s another movie about same subject-worth comparing. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-battle-of-chernobyl/

By: Kush

Kush — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 03:35:09 +0000

I am a musician from Adelaide who travelled to Ukraine at the invitation of the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture in 1991. The tour was of Western Ukraine with a Uke dance ensemble. All our profits went to the Chernobyl Foundation in Ukraine. Anyway, we did a concert in a sanatorium for radiation affected kids one day. Firstly the place was next to impossible to find; roads were blocked or impassable, no signage, generally it was obviously hidden. We did a little concert for the kids – well, the ones who could walk it turns out – and then we visited the hospital. There were 3 wings of wards full of children that could not get up from their beds. One distressed mother ran up to us and asked us to talk to the director; as we were from the west she thought we could do something about the fact that they had no medication/medical equipment etc. The director readily agreed and asked us to bring our video to record the interview. At this interview he told us that no authority in the soviet union wanted to know about them; made claims that all money would stop in Moscow and nothing reached them. He claimed he had nothing to hide and if he could work in lots of other places but them this would have been another resource they would have lost.
I still have the video of that day, the interview and of lots of these very sick kids – nothing of inside the actual hospital however – I can’t say why we didn’t video that. Maybe we were just too traumatised. There were at least 100 kids in those 3 wings of the hospital in beds – apart from the ones that were at our concert and many of *them* looked sick. A troop of about 40 people can attest to the facts I am laying out here. Suffice to say I remember the bus we travelled in was very quiet for the whole trip home..
At the time, there was a Chernobyl Foundation in most major cities in the west. What was apparent was that none of this money had ended up at that hospital – at the very least. Where it was I have no evidence for.
This propaganda does not surprise me in the least. You need to be educated on how the Russian and Soviet Governments has in the past covered up facts in the past if you believe any of this. I would say at least 57 those kids are not around today and saying that this is the entire balance of deaths because of Chernobyl!
I recon that someone needs to go to confession for saying this stuff.

By: Cassiopeia

Cassiopeia — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:03:46 +0000

I found this documentary quite interesting – when approaching it with an open mind.

In relation to the 57 deaths, I would say this is not based on unreliable USSR statistics, but on the following: http://bit.ly/ZwkiT

This cooperation between large numbers of scientists and health experts and involving 8 UN specialised agencies was published in 2005 and does not belittle the impact of the Tchernobyl accident. It clearly states that even though, to date(2005), ‘only’ 57 people have died, the overall health impact (eg thyroid cancer, an estimated future impact of +/- 4000 related deaths in the future) is much more profound.

However – it also states that:

“By and large, however, we have not found profound negative health impacts to the rest of the population in surrounding areas, nor have we found widespread contamination that would continue to pose a substantial threat to human health, within a few exceptional, restricted areas.”

and that:

“The existing “zoning” definitions need to be revisited and relaxed in light of the new findings.”

Which is, in my view, part of the doco’s point. Perhaps the idea of nuclear energy for the future needs not be accepted on face value, but neverhteless, changing our attitude to radiation more in general… food for thought, no?

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 21:44:28 +0000

Oh and a further note to those who say that animals in the surrounding area show no signs of cancers etc. that’s mainly because those animals that develop deformities obviously die out due to natural selection as they cannot feed, meaning that only healthy animals are observed by scientists.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 21:40:23 +0000

the death toll of 57 is pure misinformation on behalf of the Then Russian government, they deliberately underplayed the figures no-one will EVER know how many deaths can be directly attributed to the incident and I mean no-one. the Russian Government did not take steps to document the incident both during and after. Its interesting but the malignancy of the disaster is such that we try to wipe the true nature of it from memory and the impetus to do so is furthered by the rising cost of fuels and so on.

By: Leein

Leein — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:54:05 +0000

I think it is great that people have an opinion. I agree with the previous statements. Is it not interesting that radiation is a problem. We live in a universe of radiation. Starts to sound like global warming upstarts. I love documentaries, especially when I can get real info, but really some of these “docs” are tv global retards. I hope there are people being critical of the nature of information.

By: Frnk rzzo

Frnk rzzo — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 06:59:15 +0000

I recommend watching another documentary about the subject. Its called the battle of chernobyl.They did a really good job on this one. I think it might be on this website under the military section. Of course the soviet union lies. Thats what they do. 57 was the number of deaths that they fed to everyone to make themselves look good.

By: Moral Arbiter

Moral Arbiter — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:50:43 +0000

57 is a small number compared to the hundreds and possibly thousands of people who have died producing energy the conventional way. How many people have died in the west as a result from nuclear energy? I think the number is one from the three mile island incident. If you watched the documentary without gawking and disgusting yourself over it, Mike C, you would have noticed that they also tested the animals there that hadn’t been removed from the excluded zone. Those animals showed no sign of having any higher rates of cancer or defects compared to other animals in other areas. Man, it’s like you just went off into a little rage all to yourself, stuck your fingers in your ears and closed your eyes.

And Reba, where did you get the information that 2,000 people died in the explosion? As far as I’m aware, two people died as a result of the actual explosion. In my eyes, you’re filled with misinformation and that means you’re in no position to argue anything. Ta ta!