5 ms·

> As nuclear "disasters" go, I honestly don't even think Fukushima should be among them. Considering what COULD have happened, very little actually happened.

> As nuclear "disasters" go, I honestly don't even think Fukushima should be among them. Considering what COULD have happened, very little actually happened. There are hundreds of square miles still in the exclusion zone and some 80,000 people haven't been able to return to their homes.. I'd say a nuclear meltdown that displaces tens of thousands of people and costs several hundred billion dollars to clean up qualifies as a 'disaster'.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
Eh. A traditional disaster kills people.
- dalke 11y ago
  Eh? I don't think "a traditional disaster" means what you think it means. The Cerro Grande Fire destroyed about 420 homes and caused ~$1 billion in damages but no one died. The Bel Air Fire destroyed 484 homes but again left no fatalities. Tropical Storm Fay hit Texas and nine counties in Texas were declared disaster areas, but again, no fatalities.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    But that's just stuff, the majority of which was probably insured and even if it wasn't, all of it can (theoretically) be replaced. People can't.
    - dalke 11y ago
      I don't understand your response. When was there ever a tradition where something had to have deaths in order for it to be called a "disaster"? I gave three counter-examples of events which were labeled disasters but which had no fatalities. While what you said is (theoretically) true, all evidence is that it's appropriate to use the term "disaster" for something which 'displaces tens of thousands of people and costs several hundred billion dollars', and there's no need to distinguish between 'traditional' and 'modern' definitions. How does your comment fit into that context?
- pvaldes 11y ago
  Like in this case, by Leukemia. One of the problems with nuclear disasters is the fake "but nobody died" mantra repeated again and again.
FussyZeus 11y ago
With all respect due, I think the former residents of Pripyat would disagree with you.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

Eh. A traditional disaster kills people.

dalke 11y ago
Eh? I don't think "a traditional disaster" means what you think it means. The Cerro Grande Fire destroyed about 420 homes and caused ~$1 billion in damages but no one died. The Bel Air Fire destroyed 484 homes but again left no fatalities. Tropical Storm Fay hit Texas and nine counties in Texas were declared disaster areas, but again, no fatalities.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  But that's just stuff, the majority of which was probably insured and even if it wasn't, all of it can (theoretically) be replaced. People can't.
  - dalke 11y ago
    I don't understand your response. When was there ever a tradition where something had to have deaths in order for it to be called a "disaster"? I gave three counter-examples of events which were labeled disasters but which had no fatalities. While what you said is (theoretically) true, all evidence is that it's appropriate to use the term "disaster" for something which 'displaces tens of thousands of people and costs several hundred billion dollars', and there's no need to distinguish between 'traditional' and 'modern' definitions. How does your comment fit into that context?
pvaldes 11y ago
Like in this case, by Leukemia. One of the problems with nuclear disasters is the fake "but nobody died" mantra repeated again and again.

FussyZeus 11y ago

With all respect due, I think the former residents of Pripyat would disagree with you.