3 ms·

Well, that's not by all accounts. That's by one account: direct deaths, which isn't the worst part of a nuclear catastrophe. Only 31 people died during the Che

by danneu 11y ago

Well, that's not by all accounts. That's by one account: direct deaths, which isn't the worst part of a nuclear catastrophe. Only 31 people died during the Chernobyl meltdown, according to its wiki page. The nice thing about an earthquake or tsunami is that they kill and then go away.

jahewson 11y ago
Chernobyl was much, much worse than Fukishima. Chernobly rained down radiation on many hundreds of thousands of people. Parts of the surrounding area are intensely radioactive to this day. Fukishima is nothing like that. Total deaths from Chernobly, including cancers is expected to be around 4000. That represents approximately a 3% increase in cancer risk to some 600,000 people.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  > Parts of the surrounding area are intensely radioactive to this day. Fukishima is nothing like that. Outside of the capped reactor building itself, nothing around Chernobyl is "intensely radioactive".
catawbasam 11y ago
"The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure, though six workers died due to various reasons, including cardiovascular disease, during the containment efforts or work to stabilize the Earthquake and Tsunami damage to the site.[15]" source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_...
ptaipale 11y ago
> direct deaths, which isn't the worst part of a nuclear catastrophe. And the definitely largest impact in indirect deaths with Fukushima came from the emotion-based decision to shut down other nuclear reactors, even if there was nothing wrong with them. This lead to electricity shortage and lack of air conditioning, which killed dozens or hundreds (mostly elderly people in hospitals or similar care, who suffered heart attacks in the summer heat). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-12/heatstroke-deaths-quadruple-as-japan-shuns-ac http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-12/heatstroke...

by danneu 11y ago

jahewson 11y ago

Chernobyl was much, much worse than Fukishima. Chernobly rained down radiation on many hundreds of thousands of people. Parts of the surrounding area are intensely radioactive to this day. Fukishima is nothing like that. Total deaths from Chernobly, including cancers is expected to be around 4000. That represents approximately a 3% increase in cancer risk to some 600,000 people.

vonmoltke 11y ago
> Parts of the surrounding area are intensely radioactive to this day. Fukishima is nothing like that. Outside of the capped reactor building itself, nothing around Chernobyl is "intensely radioactive".

catawbasam 11y ago

"The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure, though six workers died due to various reasons, including cardiovascular disease, during the containment efforts or work to stabilize the Earthquake and Tsunami damage to the site.[15]" source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_...

ptaipale 11y ago

> direct deaths, which isn't the worst part of a nuclear catastrophe. And the definitely largest impact in indirect deaths with Fukushima came from the emotion-based decision to shut down other nuclear reactors, even if there was nothing wrong with them. This lead to electricity shortage and lack of air conditioning, which killed dozens or hundreds (mostly elderly people in hospitals or similar care, who suffered heart attacks in the summer heat). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-12/heatstroke-deaths-quadruple-as-japan-shuns-ac http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-12/heatstroke...