# Chernobyl, Biorobots, 500,000 deaths: Is nuclear safe as proponents claim? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2011, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693 "2011-03-31T22:33:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/1 "2011-03-31T22:33:39Z")
[UN accused of ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl deaths](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/mar/25/energy.ukraine) Officially, the[International Atomic Energy Agency](http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/faqs.shtml), IAEA, resolutely maintains that > [@](#): > > The total number of deaths already attributable to Chernobyl or expected in the future over the lifetime of emergency workers and local residents in the most contaminated areas is estimated to be about 4,000. This includes some 50 emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome and nine children who died of thyroid cancer, and an estimated total of 3,940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia among the 200,000 emergency workers from 1986-1987, 116,000 evacuees and 270,000 residents of the most contaminated areas (total about 600,000). So, about 4000 people have or will die from Chernobyl, according to the IAEA. This number is widely disputed. According to the article I linked to above, > [@](#): > > United Nations nuclear and health watchdogs have ignored evidence of deaths, cancers, mutations and other conditions after the Chernobyl accident, leading scientists and doctors have claimed in the run-up to the nuclear disaster’s 20th anniversary next month. > > In a series of reports about to be published, they will suggest that at least 30,000 people are expected to die of cancers linked directly to severe radiation exposure in 1986 and up to 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the world’s worst environmental catastrophe. According to Nikolai Omelyanets, deputy head of the National Commission for Radiation Protection in Ukraine, > [@](#): > > “At least 500,000 people - perhaps more - have already died out of the 2 million people who were officially classed as victims of Chernobyl in Ukraine,” said Nikolai Omelyanets, deputy head of the National Commission for Radiation Protection in Ukraine. "[Studies show] that 34,499 people who took part in the clean-up of Chernobyl have died in the years since the catastrophe. The deaths of these people from cancers was nearly three times as high as in the rest of the population. > > “We have found that infant mortality increased 20% to 30% because of chronic exposure to radiation after the accident. All this information has been ignored by the IAEA and WHO. We sent it to them in March last year and again in June. They’ve not said why they haven’t accepted it.” A widely cited report, known as the [TORCH (The Other Report on Chernobyl) report](http://www.nirs.org/c20/torch.pdf), concludes: > [@](#): > > • about 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths are predicted, 7 to 15 times greater > than the figure of 4,000 in the IAEA press release > • predictions of excess cancer deaths strongly depend on the risk factor used > • predicted excess cases of thyroid cancer range between 18,000 and 66,000 in > Belarus alone depending on the risk projection model Biorobots and Liquidators is what the human emergency workers were nicknamed during the early period of the Chernobyl disaster: > [@](#): > > "The nuclear reactor was burning for ten days. The people who were trying to extinguish the fire were referred to as ‘biorobots’ because they were working in the places where machines turned out to be useless. Thirty of Chernobyl liquidators died on the spot, hundreds of others suffered from cancer afterwards. Source: [Worldpress](http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/2328.cfm) Youtube has some documentaries about them, as well as the Chernobyl accident overall. I watched two of them last night. The first is [The Battle of Chernobyl](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o) It’s also available there divided into 11 parts. Another is Discovery channel’s Seconds from Disaster series [Meltdown In Chernobyl.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RDKkUwTHOg) BBC has a docudrama called Surviving Disaster: [Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQJO0VKxmuU) I’d like to discuss the true death toll from Chernobyl, and it’s implications with regard to the safety of nuclear power production. In light of the current nuclear power plant emergency in Japan, I think it’s fair to also compare Chernobyl to Fukushima, bearing in mind a few differences between the two, for instance: [ul] [li]Chernobyl (C) involved one reactor, while Fukushima (F) involves three.[/li] [li]C’s reactor exploded violently due to a sudden increase in the reactor core’s heat and power output. F hasn’t experienced a large reactor explosion, but rather partial meltdowns in three reactors. It’s unlikely Fukushima will experience a runaway nuclear reaction the way Chernobyl did, because the reactors at F were [scrammed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scram).[/li] [li]C had a spent fuel pool, but it was unaffected. F has seven fuel pools, all affected.[/li] [li]The reactor at C contained about 180 tons of nuclear fuel. F involves about 4200 tons of nuclear fuel:[/li] > [@](#): > > 3,400 tons of fuel in seven spent fuel pools within the six-reactor plant, including one joint pool storing very old fuel from units 3 and 4. There are 877 tons in five of the reactor cores. Officials have said that the fuel in Unit 4’s reactor vessel was transferred to its spent fuel pool when the unit was temporarily shut in November. source: [The Associated Press](http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/18/business-financial-impact-as-japan-earthquake-plutonium_8363305.html) [/ul] [Four months after the meltdown](http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who#nh9) Morris Rosen, the IAEA’s director of nuclear safety, said: “Even if there were an accident of this type every year, I would still regard nuclear power as a valuable source of energy.” Do you agree? Is nuclear power really so important that we should except Chernobyl-sized accidents as frequently as one per year? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/2 "2011-03-31T23:47:22Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > [Four months after the meltdown](http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who#nh9) Morris Rosen, the IAEA’s director of nuclear safety, said: “Even if there were an accident of this type every year, I would still regard nuclear power as a valuable source of energy.” > > Do you agree? Is nuclear power really so important that we should except Chernobyl-sized accidents as frequently as one per year? First, he was obviously speaking of the 4000 figure, not half a million (which I don’t buy for a moment). And second, the answer is yes since the alternative is far more deaths, possibly including the collapse of modern civilization which would kill billions. We have the choice between nuclear, coal or collapse; and coal has a good chance of creating its own collapse via global warming. And finally it’s irrelevant since a Chernobyl a year is simply impossible. People outside the old USSR don’t build reactors like that because it was a stupid design. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/3 "2011-03-31T23:59:54Z")
The guys who worked on the Chernobyl cleanup were pathetically under-equipped. Hardly any of them had proper gear. The lucky ones got crappy Soviet NBC suits meant primarily to protect against chemical agents. The majority were sent in with nothing more than lab coats and surgical masks. (The prosperity of Marxist government at work!) Of course they all got radiation sickness and died. The problem was a lack of preparation. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/4 "2011-04-01T00:06:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > First, he was obviously speaking of the 4000 figure, not half a million (which I don’t buy for a moment). And second, the answer is yes since the alternative is far more deaths, possibly including the collapse of modern civilization which would kill billions. We have the choice between nuclear, coal or collapse; and coal has a good chance of creating its own collapse via global warming. > > And finally it’s irrelevant since a Chernobyl a year is simply impossible. People outside the old USSR don’t build reactors like that because it was a stupid design. I’m sure he meant a Chernobyl-like accident with equivalent radiation release, evacuations, etc. The thing is, Chernobyl contaminated 40% of Europe’s surface area. As far as I know, there are still farms in the UK that can’t sell produce. At an accident rate of one per year, how long would it take before Europe was 100% contaminated, and then re-contaminated, again and again. There wouldn’t be a Europe, except for the radioactive mutant zombies, which I consider a plus, but anyway. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/5 "2011-04-01T00:17:43Z")
Anecdote, with possible insight… I worked for a foundation, giving away dead rich guys money. Clean karma. Anyway, every once in a while, somebody would send in a request for a science grant, which was right out, according to the rules. One of these guys was from Russia, working on measuring the extent of pollution in the Volga River. He wanted about $10,000 to buy a better measuring gadget, with a broader range. The one had had topped out at 1,000 times the US acceptable presence of cadmium. For instance. I would despair of ever getting any sort of objective numbers out of Russia, esp. the Russian of Chernobyl. Therefore, any such “empirical” results are to be viewed with suspicion. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/6 "2011-04-01T00:19:21Z")
Wait, where do the Biorobots come in? I was hoping for some kind of leftover Soviet supersoldier program. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/7 "2011-04-01T00:26:27Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > I’m sure he meant a Chernobyl-like accident with equivalent radiation release, evacuations, etc. Which as I said isn’t going to happen with more sensible plant designs so there’s no reason to worry about it. You might as well worry about crashing your car and exploding when the liquid fuel rocket mounted on your roof ignites. You don’t _have_ a rocket there, so it isn’t going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/8 "2011-04-01T00:28:37Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > As far as I know, there are still farms in the UK that can’t sell produce. For a farm to be so massively contaminated that it still couldn’t sell produce today, twenty-five years later, there would have to be incredible contamination that would be incredibly hard to cover up, especially in a 1st world country with a free press. This is a ridiculous claim. Cite, please. The only way you can get 500,000 deaths is to count every person exposed to even the tiniest amount of radiation who eventually died of cancer, and guess what? Most of them would have gotten cancer anyway. Cancer happens. The IAEA isn’t exactly in bed with the atomic energy proponents, either. They’re the guys with the Nuclear Annihilation Clock, the one that they move one minute closer to midnight every time some nutcase tries to nuke New York. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/9 "2011-04-01T00:33:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Wait, where do the Biorobots come in? I was hoping for some kind of leftover Soviet supersoldier program. The Bio-Robots were what the Russians cynically referred to the cleanup workers, as they went places that actual robots couldn’t go. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/10 "2011-04-01T00:50:41Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > For a farm to be so massively contaminated that it still couldn’t sell produce today, twenty-five years later, there would have to be incredible contamination that would be incredibly hard to cover up, especially in a 1st world country with a free press. This is a ridiculous claim. Cite, please. There’s this: [Farms still affected by Chernobyl](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4944684.stm) There are still farms in Scotland that are under restriction and have to have their animals tested. That article is from 20 years after Chernobyl. Things may have changed recently, but up until 20 years after Chernobyl, there was/is sufficient contamination from Chernobyl for restrictions. Sorry, I wish I could provide you with a juicy conspiracy theory, but there isn’t one here. Lingering Chernobyl radiation just doesn’t make headlines like it used to. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/11 "2011-04-01T01:01:54Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > I’m sure he meant a Chernobyl-like accident with equivalent radiation release, evacuations, etc. The thing is, Chernobyl contaminated 40% of Europe’s surface area. As far as I know, there are still farms in the UK that can’t sell produce. At an accident rate of one per year, how long would it take before Europe was 100% contaminated, and then re-contaminated, again and again. There wouldn’t be a Europe, except for the radioactive mutant zombies, which I consider a plus, but anyway. Except there is no Chernobyl level accident at one per year-its more like one in a billion years freak accident due mostly to the incompetence of the Soviet Union-it is more condemning of Marxism than nuclear power. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/12 "2011-04-01T01:10:01Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Except there is no Chernobyl level accident at one per year-its more like one in a billion years freak accident due mostly to the incompetence of the Soviet Union-it is more condemning of Marxism than nuclear power. Exactly. The USSR was plagued with industrial disasters, pollution and so forth. Other places don’t build nuclear reactors with flammable control rods, no containment dome, and then put incompetents in charge of it all. Or if it turns out they do, (North Korea is an obvious candidate), the problem is again the specific bad design and the system that let that design be put in place; not nuclear power. Which is why you don’t see Chernobyls elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/13 "2011-04-01T01:14:51Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > The guys who worked on the Chernobyl cleanup were pathetically under-equipped. Hardly any of them had proper gear. The lucky ones got crappy Soviet NBC suits meant primarily to protect against chemical agents. The majority were sent in with nothing more than lab coats and surgical masks. (The prosperity of Marxist government at work!) Of course they all got radiation sickness and died. > > The problem was a lack of preparation. I just happened to run across this: [Japanese Plant Had Barebones Risk Plan](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576232961004646464.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories) > [@](#): > > Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s disaster plans greatly underestimated the scope of a potential accident at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, calling for only one stretcher, one satellite phone and 50 protective suits in case of emergencies. In their defense, they’ve only had 25 years to learn from Chernobyl’s mistakes. Give them another 25, at least. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/14 "2011-04-01T02:11:52Z")
Guys, guys. Let’s pretend that the 500k deaths due to Chernobyl is a valid figure, instead of the bullshit it obviously is (more than 2 orders of magnitude more than the figure quoted by the IAEA). One has to ask ones self though…since the Soviet Union was an environmental nightmare, how does this compare to the deaths due to things like air pollution, say? In another thread, another poster showed a cite claiming that in the US there are 22k untimely deaths per year due to coal emissions. What was the old [Soviet Union](http://www1.american.edu/ted/russair.htm) like for emissions control? > [@](#): > > But the figures are grim: 1995 Environment Ministry statement indicated that two-thirds of Russia’s citizens, particularly those who live in industrial cities, are breathing severely polluted air, and as many as 50 million out of the country’s 147 million people inhale air 10 times dirtier than recommended by Russian standards. > > Moscow’s burgeoning number of automobiles spew forth nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide in record quantities, putting the health of residents at risk. In an in-depth US study published in 1995 in the Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, experts drew a clear parallel between effects of airborne particles from traffic and industry to the likelihood of premature death. The study linked breathing foul air to increased heart disease, respiratory diseases and lung cancer. > > The dangers are signaled in Russia’s population figures. The total population of Russia numbered 147.8 million in early July, down 200,000 since the beginning of 1996, according to the data just released by the State Statistics Committee. A total of 553,200 children were born in Russia between January and May 1996, down four percent on the same period of 1995. A recent report compiled by Yablokov’s commission shows that in 1995 the population of Russia decreased by 330,000, even after half a million immigrants entered the country. The biggest increase in death rate was among those aged 20 to 49. The death rate among able-bodied men is four times higher than among women and the average Russian man dies two years before reaching pensionable age. In the Far North and similar areas the population has decreased by 5.5 percent over the past four years. There has been a steady deterioration from a population growth rate of 2.2 percent in 1990 to a 5.8 percent decrease in 1995. > > The human health consequences of this inattention to the environment have been catastrophic. For reasons that Aleksei Yablokov, the head of the Security Council’s environmental commission, attributes to the degraded environment, the life expectancy of men in Russia has dropped to 57.3 years, compared to 72 in the United States. In the Kuzbass, it is only 51. According to Andrei Luzhkov, director of immunology at the Kemerovo Medical Institute, 80 percent of workers in the Kuzbass have impaired immune systems. Other studies indicate that adults in Kemerovo are more than three times as likely as people elsewhere in the country to suffer endocrine ailments and 2.7 times as likely to have chronic bronchitis. > > Kemerovo’s children have three times the kidney and urinary- tract infections and, according to the Medical Institute’s Kaznin, 2.6 times the fatal nervous-system disorders. In one of the city’s particularly polluted neighborhoods, the number of retarded children is triple the national average. Russia’s health problems, like its polluted environment, are hardly confined to the Kuzbass. In Novosibirsk, to the northeast of Kemerovo, several schools have reported cardiovascular problems in all of their students. In the Kola Peninsula, near Scandinavia, fully one- fourth of the babies have heart defects or bone-marrow disorders. Not far to the south, in the town of Nadvoitsy, decades of dumping by an aluminum plant has contaminated drinking-water sources, turning the teeth of the town’s children black and rotten. > > The environmental scourge at the root of such problems shows no signs of abating. On the contrary, according to a report released by the Environment Ministry in June, air pollution in the 60 to 70 largest Russian cities, where between 40 million and 50 million people live, rises several times a year to at least 10 times higher than the legal limit. As many as 60 million other people live in places where pollution yearly exceeds health standards by at least five times. Granted, it’s older data at this point. I don’t have the time tonight to dig up a bunch of cites to show what an environmental nightmare just the Soviet Union was. The point is that the Russians of that period, like the Chinese today, put production well above the human costs, and generally did things to their environment that no western nation would tolerate. Chernobyl was just one example of MANY…and not the worst, even using the OPs ridiculous 500,000 dead figures. Consider the numbers of dead per year in the Soviet Union from air pollution alone, if in the US we have 22,000 deaths a year attributable to it. What might the Russians have? 2 times? 5 times? An order of magnitude more…per year? And what about all the OTHER types of pollutants the Russians dumped into their environment? All the chemicals and other contaminants? And this was over DECADES. What might the death toll be in Russian lives due to mis-management by the old Soviet Government in non-nuclear deaths per year? -XT ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/15 "2011-04-01T03:28:59Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > The IAEA isn’t exactly in bed with the atomic energy proponents, either. They’re the guys with the Nuclear Annihilation Clock, the one that they move one minute closer to midnight every time some nutcase tries to nuke New York. You’re thinking of the [Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock)? The IAEA is frequently criticized for being in bed with the nuclear industry. Originally the Russians and Ukrainians predicted a 40,000 death toll at a closed door meeting where reporters were barred. The IAEA flatly refused a number so alarming, and proceeded to argue them down to the 4,000 number. I got that from the first documentary I linked to. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/16 "2011-04-01T03:37:12Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > The IAEA is frequently criticized for being in bed with the nuclear industry. Originally the Russians and Ukrainians predicted a 40,000 death toll at a closed door meeting where reporters were barred. The IAEA flatly refused a number so alarming, and proceeded to argue them down to the 4,000 number. I got that from the first documentary I linked to. And the mousy Russians and Ukrainians just looked at their shoes and said yes? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/17 "2011-04-01T04:00:40Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > And the mousy Russians and Ukrainians just looked at their shoes and said yes? :dubious: Probably. They just had their asses handed to them. It’s Ukraine’s problem now, and the bill is up over $200 billion now. I think they’re supposed to be starting construction on a newer, stronger longer-lasting sarcophagus this year or next, and it’s being paid for by other countries. They have no money to pay for Chernobyl. They do as their told, when it comes to things nuclear. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/18 "2011-04-01T05:15:47Z")
I did a little reading on that report you linked to. What I is interesting is the financing of the report. It says > [@](#): > > This report was financed by Rebecca Harms, MEP, of the Greens/EFA Party in the > European Parliament, the Altner-Combecher Foundation and the Hatzfeldt Foundation. The publishers are grateful in particular to Herr Günter Altner, Frau Altner and Herr Graf Hatzfeldt for their support. So, I like to know where things are coming from. Rebeca Harms. A pol who hates nukes. > [@](#): > > The European nuclear phase-out should be immediately addressed. Absolute priority must be that while the closure of nuclear power plants have been built before 1980 that are in earthquake-prone areas that have no double cover or boiling water reactors are. Of these systems go from the highest risks. The nuclear phase must be used quickly and consistently so that Europe can close the chapter on nuclear energy as quickly as possible. [Link](http://www.rebecca-harms.de/index.php/presse/akw-sicherheit-in-der-eu-atomausstieg-in-europa-muss-heute-40014). Altner-Combecher Foundation. I can’t find a damned thing about these guys that \*isn’t \*linked to that one report. Google doesn’t turn up shit. That is odd. Hatzfeldt Foundation. Once again, it seems the only info I can find on those guys is directly related to that report. That is rather odd. Günter Altner appears to be this guy. [Link](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.imew.de/index.php%3Fid%3D174%26id%3D174%26type%3D1&ei=AVeVTei9C9SCtgfA9sGHDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC0Q7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3DG%25C3%25BCnter%2BAltner,%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26prmd%3Divnso). So far my trust in the report isn’t all that high. Slee ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/19 "2011-04-01T05:59:04Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Rebeca Harms. A pol who hates nukes. It might help if you [spelled her name right](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Harms). > [@](#): > > Rebecca Harms (born 7 December 1956 in Hambrock, Uelzen) is a German politician and Member of the European Parliament for Alliance '90/The Greens, part of the European Greens. In July 2009 she was elected as co-president of the The Greens–European Free Alliance group in the European parliament. > Harms began her career as an apprentice landscape designer. In 1984 Undine von Blottnitz employed her as an assistant after being elected to the European Parliament. She has made numerous documentaries. From 1994 to 2004 she was a member of the Parliament of Lower Saxony. From 1998 she was leader of her party. She is a member of the Parteirat of her party. > She lives in Dickfeitzen in the Wendland region. This region became known nationwide for the Gorleben atomic waste site. Gosh, wonder why she hates nuke. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Altner-Combecher Foundation. I can’t find a damned thing about these guys that \*isn’t \*linked to that one report. Google doesn’t turn up shit. That is odd. Altner-Combecher-Foundation for Ecology and Peace is all over the web supporting stuff like… ecology & peace. Duh. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Hatzfeldt Foundation. Once again, it seems the only info I can find on those guys is directly related to that report. That is rather odd. Admit it, you didn’t look at all did you? Did you really think I wasn’t going to blow this little game of yours out of the water? [HKH Foundation](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=HKH_Foundation). > [@](#): > > Günter Altner appears to be this guy. [Link](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.imew.de/index.php%3Fid%3D174%26id%3D174%26type%3D1&ei=AVeVTei9C9SCtgfA9sGHDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC0Q7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3DG%25C3%25BCnter%2BAltner,%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26prmd%3Divnso). > > So far my trust in the report isn’t all that high. [Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. hc Günter Altner](http://www.chernobylcongress.org/speakers/artikel/62a7363d801a29ea34c942710e018a24/guenter-altner.html) > [@](#): > > Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. hc Günter Altner is a theologian and biologist. Altner, who taught at the University of Koblenz-landau till 1999, has worked for more than a quarter of a century on basic ecological principles. Ascertaining environmentally-friendly perpectives in energy policy has been his particular field of interest. Keywords like „energy efficiency“, „energy conservation“ and „regenerative sources of energy“ have shaped his thinking on future energy policy. Sorry, but I’m not going to play this game with you again. You obviously looked these things up, saw them, then came here and pretended you couldn’t find them. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693/20 "2011-04-01T06:46:44Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@kidchameleon](#): > > > > And the mousy Russians and Ukrainians just looked at their shoes and said yes? :dubious: > > > [@levdrakon](#): > > > > Probably. They just had their asses handed to them. It’s Ukraine’s problem now, and the bill is up over $200 billion now. I think they’re supposed to be starting construction on a newer, stronger longer-lasting sarcophagus this year or next, and it’s being paid for by other countries. They have no money to pay for Chernobyl. They do as their told, when it comes to things nuclear. [Funding shortfall puts Chernobyl reactor shelter in jeopardy](http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/946723--funding-shortfall-puts-chernobyl-reactor-shelter-in-jeopardy) > [@](#): > > The U.K. newspaper reports the European backers say there is a shortfall of $740 million euros (roughly $995 million Cdn) to build the shelter. The entire project costs an estimated $1.15 billion euros (over $1.5 billion Cdn). > > The shelter is expected to be completed by 2015. > > Described as the largest movable structure ever built, the shelter will be approximately 108 metres high, 164 metres wide and over 250 metres long. [Chernobyl Shelter Fund](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Shelter_Fund) [New Safe Confinement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Safe_Confinement) It’s actually a cool looking project, just sad why it has to be built. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chernobyl-biorobots-500-000-deaths-is-nuclear-safe-as-proponents-claim/576693.md?page=2)