3 ms·
Last time I checked (maybe a year ago) there was not a single person who had died from Fukushima (the reactor problems - obviously the quake/tsunami had many fa
by sambe 10y ago
Last time I checked (maybe a year ago) there was not a single person who had died from Fukushima (the reactor problems - obviously the quake/tsunami had many fatalities). There was one worker who died but the last official stance was that it was from exposure. I think also some elderly or frail people died as part of the evacuation. Estimates in the abstracts of papers I skimmed were low hundreds of potential future deaths, but quite some uncertainty there obviously. I think the models nearly always estimate on the high side due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model being used but I'm not an expert.
Obviously you can continue to argue about environmental damage and cost of the land being unusable for many years as well. I actually felt a bit better about nuclear safety though - if old reactor designs that are poorly managed can be hit by tsunamis, melt down and still not result in many deaths, the safety looks better than expected. Possibly the risk model changes for a determined attacker?
EDIT: current state of Wikipedia is pretty much in agreement with the above, but it's an article with a lot of edits and some points have no references. The number of deaths "due to evacuation conditions" is much higher than I remembered (~1500).
- snuxoll 10y agoLow hundreds of future deaths for a nuclear plant that was standing for over 40 years is a hell of a lot lower than a single coal plant, as well. Fukushima sucked, but the potential loss of life is MUCH lower than fossil fuels.
- sambe 10y agoYes, I would imagine people don't generally account for the deaths due to a coal plant when they think about it casually. The grandparent already made some claims around that, but no references.