top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 70 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 51 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago

    I'm one of today's lucky 10,000 for Bhopal. Horrific.

  • source
  • [–] 160 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (42 children)

    Yeah I like the sentiment, but no Chernobyl absolutely did not have such a small effect. Minimizing these things, especially when so well known, just fucks up our position. Reality denial isn't an effective way to advocate or to make people aware of the horrors of capitalism. All it does is train the average person to assume left wing points are childishly exaggerated. This is, in part, why capitalist propaganda is so easy.

    Here we just accept the official number and ignore all other effects. If we took the same path with the Bhopaal disaster, we'd have to ignore all the non-fatal poisonings and believe uncritically the official instant death count of just over 2,200 ignoring any deaths to come afterwards. That would be stupid

    Chernobyl was a terrible disaster that harmed an absurd amount of people, de-homed thousands, and damaged the ecosystem of the wider area. Its effects and danger are still present to this day and could have been much, much worse if not for the work of those who fixed the massive fuck up.

    Both the Bhopal disaster and the Chernobyl disaster were bred by incompetence, corruption, and a general failure to care for the worker and the general population.

    Now, if we were to keep a leaderboard, capitalism wins by many miles in the awfulness department. That's the note we should take, that's the drum we should beat.

    It wasn't socialism that caused Chernobyl. If the workers, those who built and conceived of the soviet nuclear reactors, were in charge they would have put in the safe guards they advocated for well before this disaster. They were not allowed to and the consequence was a meltdown. That's why we should give the power to the worker. The Bhopal disaster? Capital was the determiner for who had power, and those in power caused the disaster. It was the fault of capitalism as capitalism was allowed to build Union Carbide with little in its way.

    Edit: Changed Russian to soviet, re-aranged paragraphs, added clarity

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Board representation for workers needs to be a universal rallying cry

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    My dad had just gotten me a hamster and we fed it lettuce that was affected. Fuckers killed my hamster. I'm just glad I didn't eat it I guess. Poor little guy, I was heartbroken.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (29 children)

    If the workers, those who built and conceived of the soviet nuclear reactors, were in charge they would have put in the safe guards they advocated for well before this disaster. They were not allowed to and the consequence was a meltdown. That’s why we should give the power to the worker.

    if this can't happen in a communist nation, what hope is there for any other worker?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 3 months ago (28 children)

    Russia was never communist. They were a dictatorship dressed up in communist clothing. If the workers ever controlled the means of production in a nation, I'd love to hear about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (21 children)

    that's a fascinating take; what makes you believe this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (19 children)

    I don't want to be the guy arguing on the Internet, but just read the Wikipedia article on communism here. When the Russian people toppled their last monarch, they never actually went full communism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (18 children)

    Wikipedia

    this explains a lot about why you believe this.

    would you still believe wikipedia if i shared freedom of information act releases that directly contradict wikipedia? (the releases also contradict npr, cnn, cbs, bbc, etc.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    If you think Wikipedia is biased, then I have nothing further to say to you. Enjoy OAN, News Max, Fox News, and all that other right wing horse shit. Wikipedia is community consensus. It's the only place I get my "news" from.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Wikipedia is biased by nature as a secondary source, just towards the political paradigm so you don't recognize it as easily. In fact, here's a Wikipedia page you might want to check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

    Hey does ProleWiki have a page talking about its own issues? Weird how "evil" and "biased" wikipedia will explictly tell you about possible issues and its own history without issue, but ProleWiki won't.

    But sure, wikipedia is the dishonest one. Lemme go see how objective ProleWiki is on topics it dislikes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I wouldn't know, I've barely used it.

    Just checked and it doesn't seem to, but considering it's a much smaller and newer project than Wikipedia that would make sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Fair enough. Thank you for responding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Sure. Just took a look at your edit though, and I feel like holding ProleWiki and Wikipedia to the same standards is a bit absurd, especially cause there aren't people who go around using it as their main source of news like how boaratio is doing to wikipedia. Since ProleWiki is so much smaller, it would only make sense that the articles there are lower quality, there aren't as many of them, and they have been less reviewed, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    yes, wikipedia is community consensus and community consensus once was that iraq had wmd's -- the foia proved otherwise. consensus isn't truth; it's just the most popular opinion at the time.

    the foia gives you what the us government tries to hide. it is literally the us government itself being legally forced to share its secrets to the american public because of a law that was passed decades before the us gov't became fully captured by corporate interests and the epstein class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    community consensus once was that iraq had wmd’s

    It really wasn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    here's wikipedia's consensus still framing the government's wmd claims as 'assertions' while uncritically repeating them years after the iraqi invasion: https://wayback.qa-archive-it.org/all/20080911173302/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

    The foia showed the government had doubts before the invasion -- wikipedia didn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Okay..?

    Just because wiki says that doesn't mean that was the community consensus, millions of people protested that war. In my country it is still the largest protest in history.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    We're not discussing the general public's consensus.

    We're discussing Wikipedia's consensus driven decision process and why it makes Wikipedia an unreliable source.

    Wikipedia said that there was consensus and anyone w eyes and ears knew that was bullshit -- as you've pointed out -- but people still want to use Wikipedia as a source anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    You mean the workers that control the means of production in socialist China??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    The billionaires are working class there too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The billionaires that don't control the means of production?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife

    The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone has become a haven for wildlife, with species such as lynx, bison, and deer thriving in the area due to the absence of human activity for over three decades. This has led to a richer forest ecosystem and increased biodiversity, making it one of the largest nature reserves in mainland Europe.

    Also even if you take the most exaggerated numbers about Chernobyl and Fukushima combined, it's still just something we should just ignore. It was a small blip. Per megawatthour produced, nuclear energy is still by far the safest energy, safer than solar (because people fall off of roofs).

    Instead you're not just resisting, you're actually angrily rebuking and scolding OP's attempt to put these two catastrophes into perspective. You apply a double standard to how factually accurate a shitpost has to be vs the global capitalist propaganda machine.

    Capitalist propaganda is effective.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -3 points 3 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 37 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    The other one I like to compare is: in the decades that the Berlin Wall - the ultimate symbol of eeeevil gommunist authoritian totalitarianism - existed, fewer people were killed attempting to cross the wall than were murdered by a single US bomb that landed on a girls’ school in Iran in a single day.

    I do not know the number of Palestinians that have been murdered by the IOF just for approaching the intentionally vague “yellow line” since the “ceasefire” months ago, but I’m certain it’s higher than the Berlin Wall fatalities.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago

    Children are currently 50 percent of the population in the Gaza strip if I'm correct. That should tell you more than enough how bad things are.

    Israel is testament to how the West fooled everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'm seeing numbers between 140 and 327 people having been killed at the Berlin wall and 153 people at the girls' school. That that's besides the point.

    I'd say that suffering isn't measured in fatalities, neither is mortality. Groups can be oppressed resulting in enormous suffering, but with relatively few fatalities as a result. See for example the Taliban and women. There is also the factor of intentionality. The US likely didn't intentionally bomb a school, but the wall was carefully designed.

    Nonetheless, the reason the Iran war started is of course exceptionally dumb than compared to the other wars that the US started. So your point probably still stands. Sacrificing lives for petty reasons is evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago*

    When people think of a stereotypical ghoulish corporation that would melt their workers into glue after they collapsed from working 50 years in a mine for scrip they are thinking about Union Carbide.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago*

    Those are very conservative numbers for Union Carbide.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago*

    I knew about Bhopal, but I didn't know it was Union Carbide. Fun fact: Union Carbide ran the Oak Ridge enrichment site for the Manhattan project. They also created the largest American industrial disaster with the Hawk's Nest tunnel disaster. It killed over 700 miners from silicosis by ignoring safety practices. They were bought by Dow Chemicals in 2001. I guess Dow didn't like the competition in the "be a horrible chemical company" market.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    Bhopal was in the news for a while. It was the lead story on the nightly news for at least a week. I think nuclear accidents have more staying power due to fear of the unknown. The movie The China Syndrome came out a few years before and many thought they were witnessing the end of the world.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago*

    Union Carbide Productions

    Awesome 90s underground rock

    We remember

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JNkpkkulKcg&ra=m

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    I guess I'm one of the few.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    in the end estimated 50-60.000 people died from cancer related to Chernobyl.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Again, because my other comment is not visible to many of you:

    The estimate of 50,000–60,000 Chernobyl cancer deaths is a widely cited, worst-case projection, but it is crucial to understand that this figure is not a factual count. It is a theoretical calculation derived from the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, a framework that is fundamentally flawed and inappropriate for assessing the health impact of low-dose radiation exposure.

    • 29 relief workers died from Acute Radiation Sickness (ARS) shortly after the accident.
    • As of 2005, only fewer than 50 deaths were directly linked to the radiation exposure from the accident itself. This is the most solid figure based on actual evidence.
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    A total of up to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

    As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

    The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, "Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts," just released by the Chernobyl Forum. The digest, based on a three-volume, 600-page report and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident in history. The Forum is made up of 8 UN specialized agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and the World Bank, as well as the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

    https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/chernobyl-true-scale-accident

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    What about Dow chemical, or Monsanto?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    The point isn't that Chernobyl was more dangerous. The point is that the tweet isn't being honest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    You can't see the other reply so:

    A total of up to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

    As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

    The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, "Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts," just released by the Chernobyl Forum. The digest, based on a three-volume, 600-page report and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident in history. The Forum is made up of 8 UN specialized agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and the World Bank, as well as the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

    https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/chernobyl-true-scale-accident

    The other reply that you can't see:

    The tweet is being honest. The Numbers are correct.

    If interested: The Rational View podcast with Dr. Al Scott: Gerry Thomas and the UNSCEAR reports

    Link to episode: https://therationalview.podbean.com/e/gerry-thomas-and-the-unscear-reports/

    Link to media: https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/r8t8zh/TRV-GerryThomas.mp3

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    You didn't see my reply elsewhere in the thread. The tweet is dishonest because it's deliberately excluding the deaths from long term health issues in the Chernobyl while including them in the Bhopal numbers.

    I already figured out for myself that Chernobyl was still less deadly than Bhopal and I never claimed otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Maybe I'm interpreting things wrong but the study is counting the long term health issues in the 50 total deaths, 20 years after the accident is long term no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I got lost in the sauce a bit. The tweet is still comparing different statics. Chernobyl had less then 100 deaths in the first year, but thousands more deaths from cancer in the following year. Those were excluded from mention.

    Bhopal had 16,000 deaths in the first year and 500,000 "nonfatally poisoned" casualties. Those almost certainty lead to premature deaths and if we're including those, we also need to be including the long term cancer deaths from Chernobyl.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    The study is saying that the projection is 4k but they can only attribute with confidence 50 death related with the disaster.

    many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

    Late as 2004 is saying that they are counting the following years

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I mean what about ww2? All terrible disasters, but the concept was "chernobyl was not small made bigger by capitalism for fearmongering, it was huge all along". Then we can also discuss how terrible and how many victims capitalism brought, just don't base it on a lie or you'll just loose the trust of other people. Whataboutism doesn't help either, you are deflecting when you already have a lot of other potential arguments. Be better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Capitalism has killed over 100 million people directly over the last 100 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Every year ~10 million people starve to death or die of easily preventable disease. These deaths are directly attributable to capitalism, as the global system of economics and distribution. It simply isn’t profitable to the capitalists to prevent these deaths.

    So your number is way short. Every ten years capitalism kills 100 million just from starvation and disease.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    TIL Chernobyl has been re categorised as an oopsie

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    I mean, I feel like it's at least in part because one of the two still has an exclusion zone today...

    Reading up on it though, Bhopal definitely should have one

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It's also comparing deaths from Chernobyl, but limiting it to 1986 to deaths from Bhopal, both immediate and long term.

    The long term estimates from Chernobyl are debated and still look way lower compared to Bhopal, but the tweet isn't being completely honest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    While it says in the tweet "in 1986" there are no more than 100 deaths expected from chernobyl. Around 50 were killed at the accident, and around a dozen more in the years after. As of 2005 fewer than 50 deaths were directly linked to the radiation exposure.from the accident itself.

    Dr. Geraldine Thomas explained this pretty good in "The Rational Veiw"-Podcast, linked above. If we hat the same cancer-incidence by radioactivity related exclusion zones but with particulate matter, half the cities of europe would have to be closed off in summer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago

    I feel like this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. You should compare Chernobyl to Fukushima and 3 mile island. All of these accidents involved gross incompetence, but the incompetence at Chernobyl was the grossest for any large nuclear disaster in history.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    It's because of the potential. Had Chernobyl gone extra wrong (eg had the people in charge there not responded correctly), millions could be hurt, and not just in the Soviet Union. It also dominated the news for months in Europe, with the memory of having to throw away certain homegrown vegetables due to radiation being engraved into the collective consciousness.

    Additionally the Bhopal catastrophe happened to Indians and people in the West generally care little for them, due to racism and distance.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    No, it's because it made excellent propaganda, lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    Obligatory, there’s a Behind the Bastards about this, a pretty good one

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    As someone who was alive and nearly a legal adult at this time, I can say that the Bhopal disaster was widely reported on by mainstream media. It's not all that well-remembered today, but neither would Chernobyl be if not for that miniseries and the memes it generated. It's less the result of capitalist propaganda and more the result of our innate apathy towards what happens to brown people halfway around the world.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago

    Alive for neither; one of those is taught in US history classes, the other is not. The miniseries gave it a resurgence for sure, but even before that "Chernobyl" has been a proper noun on the list of key words to associate with the Cold War.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I learned about that on the Discovery Channel… but okay.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Everyone working with the seveso directive in the EU/EEA. Its widely more know than the poster give credit for among the technical side of the regulators

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    Chernobyl is remembered because it had real political effects.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago

    Chernobyl could be argued to be worse, at least from a theory perspective, because in an idealized Soviet/Communist system where the working classes are actually looking out for worker interests, the plant operators would have known about RBMK reactor flaws (and probably also would have built a containment building like Western reactors have) which likely would have prevented the disaster. At some point there was some breakdown for whatever reason that prevented this. On the other hand, at Bhopal, there was essentially no hope of worker control at all because it's built within a capitalist system. Profit at the expense of lives is the expected outcome in this system.

    tl;dr, it would be nice to see Communists et. al. hold their societies to a higher standard than simply not being as statistically bad as capitalism

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›