stop being so political

[frekk]

I'll rephrase: "The worst known scenario". We even had a totalitarian state with crazy operators as accident modifiers and still we get just 58 direct deaths and relatively low increase in cancers.

And you're still completely ignoring the fact that an entire city is gone.

OK, let's do it realistically then, if that's what you want.

You totally lose the city. It's gone. No more city. All buildings lost. All ships and military vehicles gone. Bye-bye. So sad, but ETa wanted more realistic game mechanic. So city disappear. Oh, you had 8 Wonders there and banks and marketplace and libraries? Oh ... so sad.

OH! But you get to keep the pop points and resettle them in other cities!! WOW!! That's so ... useful!! Aren't you glad now for more realism? Much better!

 

[ETa]

You totally lose the city. It's gone. No more city. All buildings lost. All ships and military vehicles gone. Bye-bye. So sad, but ETa wanted more realistic game mechanic. So city disappear.

Have you ever visited the now late USSR? There is abandoned rusting equipment and real estate everywhere. The rural regions are full of ghost tows. USSR actually built much military equipment to be disposable. Examples like light mechanized troop transports without gas refill option were built as in military situation they were supposed to be abandoned after just one use.

 

[Shurdus]

ETa, you completely ignored most of my points. You would think that they started a study if people started to drop like flies. Sure, I can see that. But then again, you mentioned that you would assume they studied this and that, and if this happened then they would study that as well, nothing significant, blah.

So basically what you are saying is that you are mentioning a source that apparently you do not understand, or at least you do not understand how valid that study is. Every study has it's drawbacks, but you need to understand exactly what they studied and what they did not study to fully understand what conclusions are valid and which ones are are not valid. Right now you just throw a number at us yet you do not even understand how that number was achieved, and then you mention that these are the 'facts'.

Some scientific approach. Well done, I take it we are all convinced. The whole incident was no biggie.

 

[ori]

for what its worth the numbers are from UNSCEAR
the 4000 number was from their 2002 assessment the below quote is from 2009. They seem to be pretty well based on factual grounds with their assessments, though of course their assessment is not undisputed by people charging political interference.

Although a considerable volume of new research data has become available,
the major conclusions regarding the scale and nature of the health consequences of
the Chernobyl accident are essentially consistent with the Committee’s 1988 and
2000 reports. Those conclusions are as follows:
(a) A total of 134 plant staff and emergency workers received high doses of
radiation that resulted in acute radiation syndrome (ARS), many of them also
incurring skin injuries due to beta irradiation;
(b) The high radiation doses proved fatal for 28 of those people in the first
few months following the accident;
(c) Although 19 ARS survivors had died by 2006, those deaths had different
causes that usually were not associated with radiation exposure;
(d) Skin injuries and radiation-related cataracts were among the main
sequelae of ARS survivors;
(e) Aside from the emergency workers, several hundred thousand people
were involved in recovery operations but, apart from indications of an increase in
incidence of leukaemia and of cataracts among those who received higher doses,
there is to date no consistent evidence of health effects that can be attributed to
radiation exposure;
(f) A substantial increase in thyroid cancer incidence among persons
exposed to the accident-related radiation as children or adolescents in 1986 has
been observed in Belarus, Ukraine and four of the more affected regions of the
Russian Federation. For the period 1991-2005, more than 6,000 cases were
reported, of which a substantial portion could be attributed to drinking milk
in 1986 contaminated with iodine-131. Although thyroid cancer incidence continues
to increase for this group (see figure X for the trend in Belarus), up to 2005
only 15 cases had proved fatal;
(g) Among the general public, to date there has been no consistent evidence
of any other health effect that can be attributed to radiation exposure.

edit: note how they make a fleeting reference to higher incidence of leukemia and cataract without specifying it - that hints at a bit more than the 6000 thyroid cancer cases (with 15 fatalities) - however while the scientific annex was supposed to be published in "late 2009" I cannot find it - so I have no idea what those indications are. But even so, fatalities were not the largest problem caused by Chernobyl - this has been pretty well established - the main problem was the (necessary) relocation of almost a quarter million people in the aftermath.

 

[Shurdus]

Right, thanks for pointing that out!

Among the general public, to date there has been no consistent evidence
of any other health effect that can be attributed to radiation exposure.

So basically there may have been studied that showed some effects that may have been attibuted to the radiation, but these effects were not reproducable, meaning that it is hard to get a statistical sample to show any ill effects. This may not mean that there is no effect or that it was not that serious - since a few hundred people getting cancer is quite serious indeed. It means that statistical research provided no clear indication that the radiation is related to any elevated health risks that received a closer look. So the radiation may still very well have caused illnesses, although this takes the form of a slightly higher ratio of people getting sick rather than clear steep numbers of people that 'drop like flies.'

Also the fact that the incident was severe enogh that 250.000 people needed a relocation is enough to justify that the incident was not peanuts... It is quite horrible indeed. This alone warrant there being several events for the plants blowing up indeed.A severe one, a mild one for plants failing within the forseen safety procedures so just the plant is lost, and anything in between is still fair game it seems. Just because the blast from the plant does not cause direct fatalities, the health risks are still such that 'nothing happens' is not always a realistic result from a plant failing.

 

[CHEESE!]

Here in Texas, an ice cream plant exploded, and felt like a earthquake for 40 miles.

A. I know this is from pages ago.

B. I know that an explosion is not something to laugh about.

C. I know many people's jobs or lives were harmed.

BUT....

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read.

 

[ETa]

Right now you just throw a number at us yet you do not even understand how that number was achieved, and then you mention that these are the 'facts'.

So what exactly are your arguments? What were the health effects? At least I threw in an number and it's source. If you wish to argue that there were other health effects, you are the one with the burden of proof.

 

[ETa]

This may not mean that there is no effect or that it was not that serious - since a few hundred people getting cancer is quite serious indeed.

A few hundred people getting cancer is not a serious thing. Cancer is the fourth most common cause of death. That there could be other effects is only speculation and can not be used in argumentation.

 

[Aeronomer]

Don't ruin a perfectly good game for the sake of a lame political statement. What's next, a penalty for eating meat?

I absolutely agree. I've been an avid Civ fanatic since Civ II, as well as a fan of every other Firaxis game. I suppose it's inevitable when you're dealing with artsy-fartsy creative types but there have always been (leftist) political undertones in the Civ games. I suppose it's unavoidable to some extent but I would welcome the absence of some of this lefty environmental stuff.

And eliminating religion? Wow. That leaves me speechless. Eliminating espionage? Hmmm...ok I guess. They'll probably just add it all back in with expansions. Sid knows I must give him my money, so he's just making sure he maximizes profit like a good capitalist. LOL

 

[Shurdus]

A few hundred people getting cancer is not a serious thing. Cancer is the fourth most common cause of death. That there could be other effects is only speculation and can not be used in argumentation.

I almost fell of my seat. People die of cancer every day, sure, but even though a few hundred or a few thousand people getting cancer is statistically minor, in an absolute sense it is not minor. It is very, very serious. Should you get cancer, would you shrug it off and say 'oh this is to be expected?' Is that not serious? Just hiding behind your statistics is just cold...

That there could be other effects is speculation indeed, and if the researchers did not look into that then that is a gross omission in the data we have. You provided us with a number based on some unspecified research. I pointed out that a number alone means nothing. For a 'fact man' you must understand that. I do not have the burden to proof anything, I was mentioning the fact that the number is pointless unless we know what exactly was researched and what was not reseached. For example, if they looked only at the number of people getting cancer, then that still leaves room for other effects that were not looked into. You cannot just post some number and then expect that to be the end of all discussion just because that number is based on some scientific research. The number alone is at best a starting point for discussion, not an answer that ends all discussion.

I do not have the burden of proof for anything. If you post the outcomes of some research - if you did post a source then I did not see it - then I can critisize that reseach all I want. If the research has omissions, then I can point these out and mention the fact that we do not see the complete picture. Just because I mention the research may be flawed does not mean that I must then provide evidence for anything.

If the research looked at cancer alone, then that is an omission. It stands to reason that there may be other effects of the incident - the nature of those effects are unclear to me. I need not specify it any further, I just point out the holes in the research and that therefore there are holes in the conclusion you can draw from that research. If you insist on mentioning that the research is based on facts, then I tell you that is not all there is too it.

I can see the merit of coming with facts like these, so thank you for pointing out these facts. What I do not agree with however is that providing some facts ends all discussion. I choose to not base what I can and cannot use in discussion on the size of your scientific blindfold if you do not mind. If you were a good sport you would admit that even though we may know some facts, we are still in the dark on other issues. Admitting that there are some things that scientific research has no answers for is no shame. If you know more than you are telling please enlighten us, but also please stop posting as if you have definitive answers while clearly you do not.

 

[frekk]

Have you ever visited the now late USSR? There is abandoned rusting equipment and real estate everywhere.

So? Whether they managed their stuff poorly or well, Chernobyl would still be wiped off the map, along with all the assets there.

So if you want realism in the game, a Chernobyl-type event should cause the total loss of the city, but the pop points get resettled.

This would be FAR more harsh than the present method. I'd rather lose a few pop points and keep the city and most of the buildings.

 

[ETa]

I almost fell of my seat. People die of cancer every day, sure, but even though a few hundred or a few thousand people getting cancer is statistically minor, in an absolute sense it is not minor. It is very, very serious. Should you get cancer, would you shrug it off and say 'oh this is to be expected?' Is that not serious? Just hiding behind your statistics is just cold...

That's what Civ is. Statistics. You count the odds of actions and after you roll the dice the end result comes out. When an individual gets a cancer it's tragedy, but Civ doesn't deal with individuals. It deals with masses.

I do not have the burden to proof anything, I was mentioning the fact that the number is pointless unless we know what exactly was researched and what was not reseached.

The number that I gave was from a official IAEA document of health effects. If they say that these were the health effects then you must give proof if you question the validity of their research. Note that health effects is a general term and contains also other ailments than cancer.

Now I'll put up some quotes:

"Childhood thyroid cancer caused by radioactive iodine fallout is one of the main health impacts of the accident."

This quote clearly indicates that they did study other health effects.

"Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the most affected populations."

"An international expert group has made projections to provide a rough estimate of the possible health impacts of 8 the accident and to help plan the future allocation of public health resources. The projections indicate that, among the most exposed populations (liquidators, evacuees and residents of the so-called ‘strict control zones’), total cancer mortality might increase by
up to a few per cent owing to Chernobyl related radiation exposure."

So most heavily exposed population may suffer up to a few per cent increase in cancer.

Have there been or will there be any inherited or reproductive effects?

Because of the relatively low dose levels to which the populations of the Chernobyl affected regions were exposed, there is no evidence or any likelihood of observing decreased fertility among males or females in the general population as a direct result of radiation exposure. These doses are also unlikely to have any major effect on the 20 number of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications or the overall health of children.

Birth rates may be lower in ‘contaminated’ areas because of concern about having children (this issue is obscured by the very high rate of medical abortions) and the fact that many younger people have moved away. No discernable increase in hereditary effects caused by radiation is expected based on the low risk coefficients estimated by UNSCEAR (2001) or in previous reports on Chernobyl health effects. Since 2000, there has been no new evidence provided to change this conclusion.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

 

[ETa]

So? Whether they managed their stuff poorly or well, Chernobyl would still be wiped off the map, along with all the assets there.

So if you want realism in the game, a Chernobyl-type event should cause the total loss of the city, but the pop points get resettled.

This would be FAR more harsh than the present method. I'd rather lose a few pop points and keep the city and most of the buildings.

So after a city is nuked, it can stay, but nuclear plant accident means that it is wiped out?

 

[Shurdus]

That's what Civ is. Statistics. You count the odds of actions and after you roll the dice the end result comes out. When an individual gets a cancer it's tragedy, but Civ doesn't deal with individuals. It deals with masses.



The number that I gave was from a official IAEA document of health effects. If they say that these were the health effects then you must give proof if you question the validity of their research. Note that health effects is a general term and contains also other ailments than cancer.

Now I'll put up some quotes:



This quote clearly indicates that they did study other health effects.





So most heavily exposed population may suffer up to a few per cent increase in cancer.




http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

And here you post some study rather then one number. Of course when you post more informations other replies are in order.

About the when you need to proof what: If we think of the problems that occur as a map, then this study answers some of the questions we may have. We may now know a bit about this map. We can fill it in.

If one looks close enough - and I did not do this, people with more time might and probably have - one may discover holes in the map.If I discover a hole in the map then I can point out the fact that it is a hole. Asking me to proof that there is uncertainty about that piece of the map is nonsensical. Having a research backing up some claims is great and everything, but we should keep in mind that we can only draw conslusions up to a certain point.

This research sheds some light on the health effects of people in the area of the incident. It does not answer the question if the incident has any effects on the stock market, or what happened to the prices of milk since the incident. I do not have to proof that these things are beyond the scope of the research, it plainly is.

So there are clearly boundaries what one may tell based on this research. I pointed out that the number you provided earlier told us nothing. This research is a step forward since we now know a lot more. I am sure if we look close enough there may be omissions or issues where the effects of the incident are unclear. Just because we know a lot more does not mean we now know everything. This research may answer some specific question, but it can never be the end of all discussion.

And in the end Civ may be about numbers and chance and such, real life is not. 4000 people getting cancer is a serious thing, no matter what you say about it. There is no excuse for saying it is not. It is an extremely cold thing to say and if I were you I would be ashamed.

 

[ETa]

So there are clearly boundaries what one may tell based on this research. I pointed out that the number you provided earlier told us nothing. This research is a step forward since we now know a lot more. I am sure if we look close enough there may be omissions or issues where the effects of the incident are unclear. Just because we know a lot more does not mean we now know everything. This research may answer some specific question, but it can never be the end of all discussion.

Of course the number is sufficient, since the source was mentioned as well. One of the big ideas in scientific research is that you don't have to explain all when others have already done that. You just add a citation. Now I won't continue doing your homework any longer and you are free to believe in what ever you wish. I have laid out the known facts. When you are ready to come out with evidence pointing to the contrary the debate can continue.

And in the end Civ may be about numbers and chance and such, real life is not. 4000 people getting cancer is a serious thing, no matter what you say about it. There is no excuse for saying it is not. It is an extremely cold thing to say and if I were you I would be ashamed.

Real life is about numbers and chance. I'm not nor should I be ashamed for not concealing the reality.

 

[frekk]

So after a city is nuked, it can stay, but nuclear plant accident means that it is wiped out?

Well, you wanted it modelled on real-world examples. Chernobyl is uninhabitable, but Hiroshima is not. You say you want realism so you should have no trouble dealing with it. Of course, we both know you're not after realism. You want nuclear accidents censored from the game to suit your politics. Now that realism appears to not suit your agenda, you're balking at implementing it, as expected.

The bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced their share of residual radiation, but it didn't stick around long, for two reasons. First, both bombs were detonated more than 500 meters above street level so as to wreak maximum destruction (surrounding buildings would have blocked much of the force of ground-level explosions). That limited surface contamination, since most of the radioactive debris was carried off in the mushroom cloud instead of being embedded in the earth. There was plenty of lethal fallout in the form of "ashes of death" and "black rain," but it was spread over a fairly wide area.

Second, most of the radionuclides had brief half-lives--some lasting just minutes. The bomb sites were intensely radioactive for the first few hours after the explosions, but thereafter the danger diminished rapidly. American scientists sweeping Hiroshima with Geiger counters a month after the explosion to see if the area was safe for occupation troops found a devastated city but little radioactivity.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...did-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-recover-so-quickly

At Chernobyl, on the other hand, an explosion ripped the roof off a nuclear reactor and exposed the core. Irradiated ejecta was thrown up by the initial explosion, but also, the reactor core was exposed. The reactor core was at ground level, not 500 meters in the air. It immediately began irradiating materials in the vicinity. Most of this was in the form of short-lived radionuclides, just like Hiroshima, but not all; the reaction was different than the atomic blast and produced many longer-lasting elements in considerable amounts, most notably caesium-137.

In addition, the reaction from the atomic weapon at Hiroshima was more or less instantaneous; one brief, intense burst. The exposed reactor at Chernobyl continued to poison the surroundings not for a few seconds, but for seven months, before it could be contained.

 

[Shurdus]

Of course the number is sufficient, since the source was mentioned as well. One of the big ideas in scientific research is that you don't have to explain all when others have already done that. You just add a citation. Now I won't continue doing your homework any longer and you are free to believe in what ever you wish. I have laid out the known facts. When you are ready to come out with evidence pointing to the contrary the debate can continue.



Real life is about numbers and chance. I'm not nor should I be ashamed for not concealing the reality.

It is not the number I am dusputing, it is that you clearly are not a decent human being. There is no excuse for hiding behind numbers.

Also I am well aware what scientific research is and how it works. This research shows some effects, and we may draw conclusions from that. What conslusions you draw is up yo you. For example, you state this:

"So most heavily exposed population may suffer up to a few per cent increase in cancer."

While the research report said this:

"The projections indicate that, among the most exposed populations (liquidators, evacuees and residents of the so-called ‘strict control zones&#8217, total cancer mortality might increase by
up to a few per cent owing to Chernobyl related radiation exposure."

You missed so many nuances in your conclusion - go ahead, redo your own homework rather than looking at mine - that we may draw the conclusion that even when backed up with research, you still need to be very, very careful, not only about what conclusions you may draw form the reseach, but also how you word them. The reseach has a nuanced way of putting the results up, you are more like a blunt axe. If you would have showed that youa re decent and showed that you were able to undertsand what you read then maybe continuing this would be meaningful. You clearly think you can hide behind your data and then think that it can replace a critical judgement, while clearly, in reality, common sense is more important than all the data in the world.

 

[Shurdus]

A few hundred people getting cancer is not a serious thing. Cancer is the fourth most common cause of death. That there could be other effects is only speculation and can not be used in argumentation.

In case you did not notice - because you seem to miss a lot of the things posted - this is why I am getting mad. Statistically a lot of people die of cancer, and statistically we may conclude that 4000 out of millions upon millions is like nothing ratio wise. That is the statistics part, it can be expressed in one cold number that is close to zero.

You however conclude that "a few hundred people getting cancer is not a serious thing." There is not a statistic in the world that tells you how serious this is, this is your conclusion. Do not tell me statistics back you up. Statistics may give you an insight in how many 'a few hundred' out of all the people dying of cancer is. What it does not say is how serious it is. Statistics are about numbers, not 'seriousness'. The conclusion that it is not serious was all you, and saying it is not serious a gross violation of everything that is decent. I am sorry, but pulling about a number to make a neutral statement may be fine, but saying that it is not serious is not a neutral objective statement, that it is not serious is your interpretation.

Now you can post numbers all day, but you cannot hide behind them to safe face. Admit that it is serious, or admit that you are not a decent human being, I see no in between here. 'Reality' has nothing to do with it, it is your interpretation of the facts that tells us who you are.

 

[CHEESE!]

This is about Civ. Civ is not an individual thing. What he means is that a few hundreds of people with cancer would not register in Civ at all. We are in Civ5-General Discussions, right, not Off-Topic Morality?

 

[Shurdus]

This is about Civ. Civ is not an individual thing. What he means is that a few hundreds of people with cancer would not register in Civ at all. We are in Civ5-General Discussions, right, not Off-Topic Morality?

Like I said, it is not trivial how you choose to phrase it. In a discussion that was only sideways related to Civ one may expect anyone to mention when we are talking about reality and when we are talking about Civ.

If he menat to say something like how you put it it would not have annoyed me at all. 4000 people is maybe a pop point in the early game, not late in the game when plants are a building that you may make. To say that 4000 people is not even one pop point in the late game is a fair statement. Note how that is not the same statement as saying that a few hundred people getting cancer is nothing serious. It is not even close to being the same.