A Bike ride Through Chernobyl

LOL! Baggss, this one is even older than the iFlea... (On a more positive note, it's a hoax; no one needs to worry about Elena's health ;-)

S2

LOL! Baggss, this one is even older than the iFlea... (On a more positive note, it's a hoax; no one needs to worry about Elena's health ;-)

S2

Evidence.....?

Some sites discussed it a couple of years ago:

http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threadid=8951
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/1026/

Still, some great pictures, and maybe its new to some. ;)

Thanks bdb.

Sorry if not all of us spend our time hunting the internet. I thought it was interesting and that I might share with the group. Guess i'll stop.

apparently....

Next time baggss just don't bother. You'll get a reputation as bad as Eric's :p

As I hear it, some of those pictures were staged. That could be the case with the money as well.

I don't have a problem with older stuff being posted - as I said, just because its not new to me doesn't me its not new to a lot of people.

Comprehensive studies have shown that there is no drastically-higher-than-normal rate of disease, cancer or illness amongst people who were affected by Chernobyl, nor amongst wildlife in the surrounding area.
The scientific models for rates of cancer and like are out-dated and based on very few real-life instances when a population has been exposed to large amounts of radiation - the aftermaths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being the primary source for data. However, these models dealt only with very high exposure levels and scientists plotted the effects on a graph (I forget exactly what the graph was meant to show - I think it had something to do with Thyroid cancer, which is meant to be a good, standard indicator because the sorts of materials the human body would absorb that were radioactive and not fairly shortly afterwards expel tend to end up in the Thyroid gland) and basically came up with a straight line, which they then just extended in both directions. However, studies of the aftermath of Chernobyl are not in-keeping with this standardised graph, they show instances of whatever it was (as I say, I think it was Thyroid cancer) to be considerably lower than what was predicted, almost imperceptible from what you would expect in a normal sample of the population.

At least, I'm pretty certain that's what it was.
I can't remember what the details were, I might have it wrong about it being Thyroid cancer, that might be the only thing they've found that's higher than normal, I can't be sure. But, anyway, the point is that there is no terrible legacy and death, disease and mutation form Chernobyl, it's all a fallacy.

If you want to look further into it, it was the BBC's Horizon that I saw that covered it - quick search of Google threw up this web-page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm).
And I also found this site (http://www.chernobyllegacy.com/index.php?cat=1), which looks as though it should make for interesting reading.

Usually, beeping of dosimeter speed me up and I pass this part of road as fast as road condition allow.

Would speed me up too......