4 ms·
Both "worst car accident" contenders here have bigger death tolls than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9856/which-
by zurn 11y ago
Both "worst car accident" contenders here have bigger death tolls than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined:
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9856/which-single-car-accident-in-history-caused-the-most-deaths https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9856/which-singl...
This doesn't really matter though since it's a meaningless safety measure to compare "worst accident per machine" between a single car and a power plant serving a million people. By this measure biking is much safer than train riding.
Here's some more useful stats and trivia about death tolls and power generation:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5783526/what-is-the-worst-kind-of-power-plant-disaster-hint-its-not-nuclear http://io9.gizmodo.com/5783526/what-is-the-worst-kind-of-pow...
By "death toll per single machine", hydro would be the worst energy source, beating nuclear by 3-4 orders of magnitude.
- andrewprock 11y agoI don't think death toll is the catastrophic aspect of nuclear failures. Rather, it is rendering large swaths of productive land unusable. Chernobyl rendered an area about the size of Rhode Island, Samoa, or Luxembourg unusable.
- zurn 11y agoHere again nuclear is much better than eg hydro by TWh.