Talk:Socialist Environmental Disasters

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

If you want to accuse someone of deceit, I suggest you accuse the Soviet Union, because they executed such a good cover-up that 20 years later your article says only 50 people have died. The actual number of indisputable, directly confirmed deaths is 56, and all estimates say that thousands, the WHO says 4000, will eventually die from causes related to this tragedy. If 4000 deaths isn't a disaster, I don't know what is. Bohdan 00:21, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

About the hype

Ed, i added those 4000 deaths that the study predicted to the article, those early estimates where offcourse allso estimates of the total number of casualties, not just people who died right after the incident. And those estimates wheren't only the estimates of enviromentalists or liberals, those where made by medical and other professionals who did the best they could based on the information they got from the accident.

Allso, how can you actually say that the distress of people living in those areas is caused by the "hype around environmentalist predictions" I would bet that their distress has bit more to do with the fact that an nuclear powerplant exploded at their backyard and that even with the new predictions around 4000 people will die eventually because of that. Allso when there has been around 4000 thyroid cancer cases, i would say that most of them actually have a reason to be afraid. WillM 06:51, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and just noticed, the report actually speaks from 4000 - 9000 casualties, so the 4000 is the best case scenario even in this study. WillM 06:58, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Allso worth noting is that there has been other studyes made from the subject afterwards, from which many don't agree with this one. For example here is a study that estimates the death toll to be around 30 000 - 60 000 and the new study made by 52 scientists to Greenpeace sets the estimate to even higher[1]. This controversy is discussed in this article by BBC. So still today the estimates range from that 4000 - 9000 to all the way up to 100 000. WillM 07:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Current intro paragraph

Rob, could you maybe expand a bit on your edit there? I know we at CP value conciseness, and I also know that we at CP don't dig leftist whatever, but... I fail to see the connections you seem to point at.

Three strong claims here that could really use sourcing or expansion:

  • "caused by a lack of environmental regulation"
  • "used and promoted environmental movements worldwide to subvert free market economics"
  • [continued]"and human rights"

The first one should be easy enough, but it still wouldn't hurt to either be more specific or to point at a source. But the last two claims made me go "Wha-?" because they pretty much come out of nowhere (and then again leave into nowhere). I figure you're a smart guy and based those claims on good sources, so this is just a request to include them in the interest of the reader. Right now, the intro paragraph sounds a lot like an abstract or summary without the rest of the undoubtedly wow-ing article: It's concise and certainly gets a point across, but people can't help but feel that they're missing something. And since the points touched here aren't really picked up in the article, they're left wanting. --Jenkins 14:03, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Intro Paragraph & Article Title

This page claims there are many 'Socialist Environmental Disasters' and yet, it cites only one example. Furthermore, 'Socialism' did not cause Chernobyll, and the title 'Socialist Environmental Disasters' indicates 'Socialism' is to blame. Both these factors make this page meaningless. A more appropriate title would be 'Environmental Disasters That Occured In Socialist Countries'. Though, even this would be inaccurate, as only one example is given.

Personal tools