4 ms·

great example of a tech that works perfect in theory, but bombs horribly in practice. accidents happen all the time, see the massive blasts in china recently.

great example of a tech that works perfect in theory, but bombs horribly in practice. accidents happen all the time, see the massive blasts in china recently. but, with other tech, the effects are limits to proximity. tchernobyl's fallout cloud swept over europe. no other failure of tech comes close. learning from mistakes in nuclear is very expensive, we might run out of planet until it is perfected.

walshemj 11y ago
And a single mining accident can kill hundreds.
- sjwright 11y ago
  Coal mining kills hundreds without accidents.
  - walshemj 11y ago
    Well that as well as does hydro power 35 died building one of Scotland's pumped storage systems.
sjwright 11y ago
> no other failure of tech comes close Chernobyl killed 56 people directly. The full lifespan of the radioactive leak is statistically estimated to result in shortening the lifespan of roughly 4,000 people through cancer[0]. If you can't think of a more deadly technology failure incident, then you're horribly undereducated. You don't even need to go beyond the scope of electricity production to find incidents that were orders of magnitude more deadly. The Banqiao Dam hydro power station catastrophically failed and killed an estimated 171,000 people. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_...
- pinaceae 11y ago
  how about you quote the whole wiki article? "The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[5] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[6] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[8]" after the dam in china broke, the area became habitable. tchernobyl's surroundings not so much. the nice thing about radiation is the long term effects that make it so hard to measure. genetic issues in newborns are kind of hard to stomach. and right now the waste figures worldwide do not include the reactors and buildings themselves. what exactly are you proposing there? using the nuclear reactor in the center of our solar system seems like a better bet.
  - sjwright 11y ago
    I cited the wiki article for you. And from that I cited the most reputable, objective number rather than the unsubstantiated hysterical numbers claimed by activist groups. Put your prejudices aside for a moment and consider it objectively. Nuclear power is demonstrably the safest form of energy generation per kilowatt with the sole exception of thermal solar. Wind turbines and photovoltaic solar are more deadly. I won't cite any specific source because there are literally hundreds.[0] [0] https://www.google.com.au/search?q=deaths+per+kilowatt https://www.google.com.au/search?q=deaths+per+kilowatt

walshemj 11y ago

And a single mining accident can kill hundreds.

sjwright 11y ago
Coal mining kills hundreds without accidents.
- walshemj 11y ago
  Well that as well as does hydro power 35 died building one of Scotland's pumped storage systems.

sjwright 11y ago

> no other failure of tech comes close Chernobyl killed 56 people directly. The full lifespan of the radioactive leak is statistically estimated to result in shortening the lifespan of roughly 4,000 people through cancer[0]. If you can't think of a more deadly technology failure incident, then you're horribly undereducated. You don't even need to go beyond the scope of electricity production to find incidents that were orders of magnitude more deadly. The Banqiao Dam hydro power station catastrophically failed and killed an estimated 171,000 people. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_...

pinaceae 11y ago
how about you quote the whole wiki article? "The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[5] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[6] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[8]" after the dam in china broke, the area became habitable. tchernobyl's surroundings not so much. the nice thing about radiation is the long term effects that make it so hard to measure. genetic issues in newborns are kind of hard to stomach. and right now the waste figures worldwide do not include the reactors and buildings themselves. what exactly are you proposing there? using the nuclear reactor in the center of our solar system seems like a better bet.
- sjwright 11y ago
  I cited the wiki article for you. And from that I cited the most reputable, objective number rather than the unsubstantiated hysterical numbers claimed by activist groups. Put your prejudices aside for a moment and consider it objectively. Nuclear power is demonstrably the safest form of energy generation per kilowatt with the sole exception of thermal solar. Wind turbines and photovoltaic solar are more deadly. I won't cite any specific source because there are literally hundreds.[0] [0] https://www.google.com.au/search?q=deaths+per+kilowatt https://www.google.com.au/search?q=deaths+per+kilowatt