3 ms·

First, "found no evidence" is in no way a conclusion that no one will die from aftereffects of Fukushima. If you actually click through to wiki's citation you'l

by Steko 11y ago

First, "found no evidence" is in no way a conclusion that no one will die from aftereffects of Fukushima. If you actually click through to wiki's citation you'll see that the study repeatedly cops out and says "more data/study is needed". There are other studies [1] that suggest the risk runs as high as over 100 deaths from cancer. [1] http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/TenHoeveEES12.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/TenHoeveEES12.pd... Second, there's 9 plant workers that inarguably died from the event, the fact that they may not have died from radiation seems not all that important, do we write off the coal miners who died due to mine collapse and only look at lung cancer, etc.? Grandparent claim of "Fukushima killed zero" is simply a 100% false claim. Third, similarly, there are non-radiation effects on general populace, described in more detail at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Risks_from_radiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

ceejayoz 11y ago
> There are other studies that suggest the risk runs as high as over 100 deaths from cancer. Second, there's 9 plant workers that inarguably died from the event... Let's run with that for a moment. According to Wikipedia, the tsunami caused 15,893 deaths, 6,152 injuries, and 2,572 missing. We're talking about a rounding error even in your worst case, in an exceedingly rare disaster.
- Steko 11y ago
  Look if you want to move the goalposts ("killed zero" -> "rounding error") and admit your earlier claims overreached and were wrong I'm fine with that. I'm very much pro-nuclear power and while I don't think of it as a panacea I'm open to the idea that it might be. OTOH, like most pro-nuclear people, I'm not lining up to raise my family next door to the reactor and I also don't think that the case for the safety of nuclear power needs to be exaggerated. Being 'a lot safer than coal' is a box that a lot of alternative energy sources get to tick off and a number of them are safer than nuclear too.

by Steko 11y ago

ceejayoz 11y ago

> There are other studies that suggest the risk runs as high as over 100 deaths from cancer. Second, there's 9 plant workers that inarguably died from the event... Let's run with that for a moment. According to Wikipedia, the tsunami caused 15,893 deaths, 6,152 injuries, and 2,572 missing. We're talking about a rounding error even in your worst case, in an exceedingly rare disaster.

Steko 11y ago
Look if you want to move the goalposts ("killed zero" -> "rounding error") and admit your earlier claims overreached and were wrong I'm fine with that. I'm very much pro-nuclear power and while I don't think of it as a panacea I'm open to the idea that it might be. OTOH, like most pro-nuclear people, I'm not lining up to raise my family next door to the reactor and I also don't think that the case for the safety of nuclear power needs to be exaggerated. Being 'a lot safer than coal' is a box that a lot of alternative energy sources get to tick off and a number of them are safer than nuclear too.