Today, Greenpeace released a report putting the Chernobyl death toll above 90,000. However, as of September 2005, the UN Reported "less than 50" deaths as a direct result of the radiation, and their prediction for the total future number of deaths is is less than 4000. So why this difference of opinion? Spin.
What’s even more interesting is Michael Crichton’s evaluation of the situation, in his 2005 speech Environmentalism as Religion:
With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it’s a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn’t quit when the world doesn’t end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts….
First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It’s not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical.
This is why Newt Gingrich and others have long been calling for "scientific environmentalism" – that is, environmentalism based on and prioritized by fact, not emotionalism.
Scientific environmentalism offers a great opportunity for a healthier environment through technology and entrepreneurship. Republicans now have an opportunity to act for the environment through an alternative to the dominant regulation-litigation, bureaucratic model. Sound science, increased research budgets, and better technologies will produce better environmental policy. – Newt Gingrich in the WSJ, Dec 2002.
Why do people link to Michael Crichton’s essays as if he were any sort of expert on anything relavent? Here’s another good Crichton piece:
Spoon Bending Party
When I first read this, I thought “No way”, but then I tried it, and sure enough: I was able to bend spoons! Here are some of my attempts. Spoon, Spoon, and Fork.
Oh wait, I used my hands to do those. Just like anybody else who wants to bend spoons, asking the spoon to bend did not help me. And it hurt my fingers too (especially the fork). So I guess I don’t really take anything that Crichton says very seriously, especially when he’s claiming that other people aren’t being scientific enough for him. What, exactly, is his standard for ‘in objective and verifiable science’? Not much, apparently.
I think you are making a logical error – rather than answering his assertions and looking at the numbers, you are attacking his credibility. We may need to question him, but what about those greenpeace numbers?
Oh no, I didn’t mean to suggest that Crichton was wrong in this case just because he believes he can bend spoons with his mind. In this case, Greenpeace very well might be making absurd numerical exaggerations. Alternatively, The WHO may be underplaying the effects of Chernobyl. And it’s certainly possible that both are happening at the same time. I really don’t have nearly enough background information about either to just dismiss one of them outright.
My point was mostly that it surprises me when (1) people like yourself link to Crichton as an advocate for more credible scientific inquiry, and (2) that Crichton himself considers himself an advocate for more credible scientific inquiry. I can’t find the link right now, but he’s often asked whether he wonders how spoon bending works, and his comments are to the effect of “No, not really. It’s just one of those mysteries.”
Mr-Everything-Is-a-Religion has no problem in his own unsubstantiated belief in spoon bending, of all things. It’s sort of bizarre, and it makes me think twice about his ability to be the objective, scientific source that he purports himself as.
The WHO may be underplaying the effects of Chernobyl.
Actually, I think WHO is just quoting the UN. But I considered that. Why would the UN want those numbers to be low?
I just linked to Crichton because he said well what I have been saying and thinking, and seems to have researched the question at hand. I wasn’t necessarily appealing to him as a scientific authority.
Methinks you are taking liberties stating his position on Spoonbending:
From TFA:
Because spoon bending obviously must have some ordinary explanation, since a hundred people from all walks of life we’re doing it. And it was hard to feel any sort of mystery: you just rub the spoon for a while and pretty soon it gets soft, and it bends. And that’s that.
He obviously sees it as a parlor trick.
Besides, everyone knows that psychic powers are only granted by His Grand Eminence, The Galactic Ruler Xenu.
Lonnie, I'd like to believe that what you're saying is true, but I just don't think it is. I think psychic metal-bending is a parlor trick, which is to say that I think it's very unlikely any small child could bend a bar of steel even in the slight degree that Crichton says he witnessed.
Crichton may believe that there's a scientific explanation for the way that he thinks people are able to bend metal, but the important distinction is that he very clearly believes these people are doing it with their minds.
The evidence of this is that Crichton himself suggests that the technique requires "focused inattention", which would not be necessary if he actually believed it to be some kind of trick. The fact is that he believes there must be some kind of mental-metal-bending power that people posess, but he's unwilling to back it up with absolutely any kind of evidence or even reasonable hypothesis. I find this hypocritical considering his recent positions on the importance of science.
We're not seriously thinking that Crichton is some sort of reliable source are we? I haven't been able to get my mind around this fact for a few days now; he's an author of pulp books. Which is fine. He has made loads of money doing so. And the movies associated with his work are similarly pulpy, but occaisonally tolerable, Congo notwithstanding. But people, please. It's Michael Crichton.
To put it another way, I agree with critics who argue that liberal celebrities often ought to shut up, what with them seeming to have no idea what they're talking about. Same goes for Crichton.