tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post4936533814787505556..comments2023-11-19T17:31:49.939+00:00Comments on Bristling Badger: into chernobyl's dead zoneUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-19364131955751439112009-02-27T23:27:00.000+00:002009-02-27T23:27:00.000+00:00MarkR, thankyou so much for the link to your trave...<B>MarkR</B>, thankyou so much for the link to your travelogue.<BR/><BR/>I'm a little saddened to learn that Elena Filatova's account is economical with the truth, but on reflection it doesn't really take away what I love about it. It wasn't the image of her as lone biker, it was that someone travelled into this place, documented it and then wrote in such concise yet profound terms.<BR/><BR/>Your travelogue is much more straightforward, but no less riveting. And the hard fact element is really helpful. The city of Pripyat has even greater emotional impact when I learned it was evacuated with three hours noticed and told to take things for three days away. Perhaps more poignant is the fact it was a planned city founded in 1970. It's been gone for longer than it was lived in.merrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10959849087751101034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-39880753399314310872009-02-27T22:23:00.000+00:002009-02-27T22:23:00.000+00:00While Elena's story about riding her motorcycle in...While Elena's story about riding her motorcycle in the Chernobyl Zone is false, no one can deny the importance of her work. It is mostly due to her stories that the world has been reminded about the tragedy of the Chernobyl disaster. If you are concerned about how she wrote her stories, call it poetic license.<BR/><BR/>I personally visited the Chernobyl area for two days in June 2006 with a friend and former resident of Pripyat. We toured the Chernobyl Plant (including the Reactor 4 control room), several of the abandoned villages, and Pripyat. I have posted a photo journal of my trip at:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.chernobylee.com/articles/chernobyl/my-journey-to-chernobyl-1.php" REL="nofollow">My Journey to Chernobyl: 20 Years After the Disaster</A>MarkRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02327954342985890470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-40524361102600268502009-02-27T19:03:00.000+00:002009-02-27T19:03:00.000+00:00DuncIf we can have enough nuclear accidents and re...<B>Dunc</B><BR/><BR/><I>If we can have enough nuclear accidents and render sufficient areas of the world unfit for human habitation, then other species will likely benefit.</I><BR/><BR/>You know that sentence you quote? Did you read the first half where Mark Lynas said 'It's not an argument for lots of nuclear accidents to protect biodiversity'? What do you think he's trying to say there?<BR/><BR/><I>is it that environmentalists are motivated by irrational misanthropy, valuing all other species more highly than people, or is it that they're a bunch of hopeless sentimentalists who are unwilling to inflict the necessary human suffering to "save the world" for other species?</I><BR/><BR/>Or is it that - as Mark Lynas and I have both made clear is our belief, that the looming climate crisis is a huge threat to human wellbeing?<BR/><BR/>There can be little doubt that many pecies will do well with a drastically altered climate. Humans are unlikely to be one of them. The guff about 'saving the planet' is absurd, it will survive us all perfectly well. <BR/><BR/>One of the main motivations for me, and most environmentalists I know, is that we have no right to inflict wanton <A HREF="http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2009/02/caviar-enemas-vs-inter-generational.html" REL="nofollow">damage</A> on other people or other species.<BR/><BR/>There are people who do believe we have that right. Given that it's a belief that a minority of the people alive today have the right to fuck over everyone else now and in future, it's surely they who win the Misanthrope of The Year Award.merrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10959849087751101034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-86588891239560834802009-02-27T19:02:00.000+00:002009-02-27T19:02:00.000+00:00Mark, I didn't quite say you were misanthropic, bu...<B>Mark</B>, I didn't quite say you were misanthropic, but were making a pretty flimsy defence of nuclear power and adding weight to the charge that environmentalists are misanthropic.<BR/><BR/>As I made clear, I didn't post this Chernobyl stuff to make any point about new nuclear power plants at all, just as a really interesting travelogue.<BR/><BR/>I note that you haven't responded to points made in the comments on the earlier <A HREF="http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2009/01/nuke-mark-lynas.html" REL="nofollow">post</A>:<BR/><BR/>As I said in the <A HREF="http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2009/02/caviar-enemas-vs-inter-generational.html" REL="nofollow">subsequent post</A>, nuclear power must be a technology of absolute last resort as it saddles many generations hence with most of the costs and none of the benefits. <BR/><BR/>It commits us to a militarised society for that time, and presents many dangers and injustices. How would you make Eon liable for an accident in 400 years time?<BR/><BR/>I have said what my problem is several times; there are seemingly rigorously researched solutions like Pöyry Energy's CHP report or Zero Carbon Britain's vision that avoid the need for nukes. So if we are agreed that nuclear is a technology of last resort and there are credible voices saying we're not at last resort yet, why would we advocate it? Where have the above mentioned reports got it wrong?<BR/><BR/>i presume you're a busy chap and can't deal with every blogger that mentions you. But your response here has taken as much time as it would've done to properly answer my previous points, if you had a credible answer to give.<BR/><BR/>Your lack of a response to this, coupled with a failure to address the flaws in your pro-nuclear reasoning, leave me convinced that nuclear is not essential.merrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10959849087751101034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-71811035300597468072009-02-27T12:49:00.000+00:002009-02-27T12:49:00.000+00:00it is an argument for environmentalists to stop pr...<I>it is an argument for environmentalists to stop pretending that getting rid of nuclear is somehow good 'for the health of the planet' and whatnot.</I><BR/><BR/>True. If we can have enough nuclear accidents and render sufficient areas of the world unfit for human habitation, then other species will likely benefit. Or you could cut out the middle man and just start getting rid of people...<BR/><BR/>Yes, that does sound a little misanthropic, doesn't it?<BR/><BR/>So, is it that environmentalists are motivated by irrational misanthropy, valuing all other species more highly than people, or is it that they're a bunch of hopeless sentimentalists who are unwilling to inflict the necessary human suffering to "save the world" for other species? I can never get that straight...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-44530085441535399442009-02-27T12:48:00.000+00:002009-02-27T12:48:00.000+00:00i think it may have been me that sent you the link...i think it may have been me that sent you the link to this a while back. I'd be very disappointed if it turned out to be suspect. RAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-9295788229567445392009-02-27T10:16:00.000+00:002009-02-27T10:16:00.000+00:00Elena doesn't appear to have been entirely honest ...Elena doesn't appear to have been entirely honest with the world. The romantic idea of this girl, who's somehow obtained a pass through family connections, whizzing along the empty, grass grown roads on her bike is challenged by a tour guide, who claims that she actually booked a tour, wore a bikers jacket, and took photos like anyone else on the tour.<BR/><BR/>I've spent a lot of time looking at her work, and it's fantastic. I love the photography. Her words touch my heart. But why the subterfuge?<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Filatova#Chernobyl_photos_and_motorcycle_tripPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07477727620596783913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-66869612905166524262009-02-26T20:13:00.000+00:002009-02-26T20:13:00.000+00:00Well I'm sorry if my comments on Chernobyl sounded...Well I'm sorry if my comments on Chernobyl sounded misanthropic. But the conclusion is undeniable: even the worst-case scenario nuclear accident (which Chernobyl surely was - the design was inherently unsafe, and there was no containment building, unlike for all Western reactors) the consequences for wildlife are far less than the consequences of normal everyday human activities. It's not an argument for lots of nuclear accidents to protect biodiversity, but it is an argument for environmentalists to stop pretending that getting rid of nuclear is somehow good 'for the health of the planet' and whatnot. <BR/><BR/>There is a voluminous literature of environmental studies done on post-Chernobyl impacts, and a whole discipline of radioecology to get into if you're interested. (There's even a journal called the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity.) A shorter and quicker read (though not so quick) is the report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group called 'Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and their Remediations: Twenty Years of Experience'. You can download it from the World Health Organisation website: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/IAEA_Pub1239_web%5B1%5D.pdf<BR/><BR/>Be very wary of anecdotal or campaign-inspired information about the effects of Chernobyl. If we're going to stick to the science on climate change, then we need to do likewise when examining the effects of ionising radiation. Luckily there's an IPCC-style body bringing together the expert consensus, called UNSCEAR (the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). See http://www.unscear.org/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com