2 ms·

certainly shouldn’t be okay with it, but if arbitrary people in a 100km radius were effected rather than just miners, yes that would be worse, because their “de

• roenxi 8y ago
  So what are you thoughts on coastal cities? Should the government do something about them? My memory is every so often a major hurricane comes along and kills a bunch of people. The people who die probably didn't choose to put the city where it is. The risks are much higher than the nuclear industry. And some follow up questions, because I always vent on Nuclear (sorry, don't mean to take it out on you, the lack of evidence based policy on environmental issues just gets me every time): Is dying in a hurricane better than the health impacts of nuclear, which are many years delayed? Do you think that the evacuation from the region around Fukashima (deaths: 10s of people), which killed more people than the radiation (deaths: 0) is evidence that the standard of "were effected" is too high? Have you ever exposed yourself to so much solar radiation that you felt heat on your skin? Do you feel that this level of risk is remotely acceptable, given the number of deaths caused by skin cancer each year? _PS_ I've worked on a coal mine. Deaths mining coal is already a crazy low figure, Australian coal mines are probably safer than supermarkets by the statistics. I'd be shocked if erecting and maintaining solar panels and wind turbines is safer than nuclear. Roofs and spinning blades will kill people.