4 ms·
I don't think that's true. We've used nuclear power for decades with exceptionally few problems or deaths. There are single hydroelectric dam failures that have
by ALittleLight 8y ago
I don't think that's true. We've used nuclear power for decades with exceptionally few problems or deaths. There are single hydroelectric dam failures that have killed more people than everyone who has ever died from nuclear power - including Chernobyl, Three mile island, Fukushima, etc.
Banqio dam killed 174,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Chernobyl, on the other hand, the deadliest and worst nuclear power plant disaster in history killed 45 directly and was possibly responsible for increased cancer incidence adding another 4-6,000 cancer deaths.
Should we discontinue hydroelectric power because all dams will eventually fail and may flood inhabited areas? Nuclear power is incredibly safe.
- superpermutat0r 8y agoI'm pretty sure no one has done the tail analysis for pesticides, cars, nuclear or hydro, before they were introduced en masse. I'd much rather have close to 0 deaths from all of the above guaranteed, when catastrophe happens. I'm aware that nuclear is probably the only thing that will solve the energy crisis. But I'm wary of the long term risks. Just like I would be with the dam.