|
|
|
April 12, 2011
If opinions have become truth, are skeptics becoming truth haters?
During one of his discussions of Chernobyl (the truths of which seem very much unsettled), M. Simon cited a source familiar to anyone old enough to remember the good old days of Cold War moral clarity. PRAVDA.
While it still bears the commie logo, the editorial bias has changed. Anyway, in response to M. Simon's citation, commenter Bill Johnson snarked as follows,
Pravda of course means Truth. But when Pravda is not Pravda does that mean Truth no longer truth? What if it never was and still isn't? In an email to M. Simon last night I remarked on the irony of how Pravda was "lies" when it was a left wing government mouthpiece, and a "source" to some people now that it's a right wing anti-semitic rag. In the context of Chernobyl, the "official" numbers have of course never validated by anyone, which means that Pravda can be cited as needed, depending on POV. (It would not surprise me if Pravda has run various and contradictory sets of Chernobyl figures over the years....) It is a stunning and unwanted reminder that "news" and "truth" are as relative as they ever have been, which makes skepticism the only avenue towards even approaching what may or may not be true. It's easy to talk about truth, but the devil is in the verification. Truth is opinion? Just what I used to hate the Post-modernists for saying. What could suck more than that? posted by Eric on 04.12.11 at 09:14 AM
Comments
Thanks! M. Simon · April 12, 2011 5:25 PM Heh. The way I learned the quote was "In Pravda there is no news and in Izvestiya there is no truth." (I learned the quote in Russian - sounds better that way.)(Pravda and Izvestiya - the latter meaning 'news').On the other hand, you could have said "In in Pravda there is no truth, and in Izvestiya there is no news" just as truthfully. (Both were basically propaganda arms of the gov't.) Anyway, I agree with Bill Johnson. Pravda? Right. I used to read it (in Russian). I still read it sometimes, now in English. I read the National Enquirer and Weekly World News (which I love) sometimes, too. I don't cite them, though. Except as humor. Kathy Kinsley · April 12, 2011 5:55 PM A million years ago (i.e. 30 or so) Commentary did a fine article called something like, A Day in the Life of Pravda and the NY Times, comparing their respective coverages on a single morning. It would probably be worth digging up. hmi · April 12, 2011 6:19 PM Kathy - sorry - I was misremembering from wayyyyyy back, when I studied Russian history and culture in college. My Bad. But I did not want to claim it was original to me, just trying to cite an older Russian (well, Soviet) saying. Eric - I have seen some pretty ridiculous articles on the Pravda site, and have heard much smaller estimates of Chernobyl deaths. I don't believe the large number cited can be substantiated. And tha's why I commented. Anonymous · April 12, 2011 9:36 PM Kathy - sorry - I was misremembering from wayyyyyy back, when I studied Russian history and culture in college. My Bad. But I did not want to claim it was original to me, just trying to cite that Russian (well, Soviet) saying. Eric - I have seen some pretty ridiculous articles on the Pravda site, and have heard much smaller estimates of Chernobyl deaths. I don't believe the large number cited can be substantiated. And tha's why I commented. Bill Johnson · April 12, 2011 9:38 PM Bill, The smaller number was originally 40,000. It was cut by a factor of 10. As explained in the Chernobyl movie I posted a while back. So 18,000 may be a conservative number. I also posted an article by a Deputy of the Supreme Soviet explaining why a smaller number was to the Soviet advantage. So 18,000 may be conservative. As to truth? Well who knows? So much of it is merely opinion. Or for the convenience of government and the cartels that own it. M. Simon · April 12, 2011 11:38 PM The tell tale in all this? The Soviets no longer use nuclear power. M. Simon · April 12, 2011 11:39 PM I got my facts garbled: M. Simon · April 12, 2011 11:43 PM M Simon, to rebut Pravda, let's continue with the use of wikipedia (an authoritative source sometimes, but when?)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects 203 people were hospitalized immediately, of whom 31 died (28 of them died from acute radiation exposure). Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the disaster under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous the radiation exposure (from the smoke) was (for a discussion of the more important isotopes in fallout see fission products). 135,000 people were evacuated from the area, including 50,000 from the nearby town of Pripyat, Ukraine. Health officials have predicted that over the next 70 years there will be a 2% increase in cancer rates in much of the population which was exposed to the 5-12 EBq (depending on source) of radioactive contamination released from the reactor. An additional 10 individuals have already died of cancer as a result of the disaster. and... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster The number of victims is disputed; some have claimed that tens or hundreds of thousands have died as a result of the accident, but these claims are wildly exaggerated.[1](BJ: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf ) Confusion has arisen due to the deaths of thousands of emergency and recovery operation workers as well as people living in 'contaminated' territories caused by diverse natural causes. During mid-1986 the official Soviet death toll rose from 2 to 31, a figure that has often been repeated. While some claim that deaths as a result of the immediate aftermath and the cleanup operation may number at least 6000,[2] that exceeds the number of workers known to have died from all causes by the National Committee for Radiation Protection of the Ukrainian Population. For further information on the indirect health implications, see Chernobyl disaster's effects on human health.
Bill Johnson · April 13, 2011 5:05 PM Post a comment |
|
April 2011
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2011
March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 Sarah Hoyt Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Balko on SWAT Teams. How calling "Police Militarization" slanders the military.
• Lecture not to miss • When the stampede arrives, who you gonna call? • Bee Stung • Fukushima Roundup - 12 April • What we eat, where we live, and how we raise children is up to THEM! • If opinions have become truth, are skeptics becoming truth haters? • Level Seven • TEPCO: Accident Likely Worse Than Chernobyl • A small step on the road to restoration of independence?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"What could suck more than that?"
Belief can trump truth and reality; and the ones that can do this, ain't yours.