7 ms·

Good to know thanks. It remains an immensely lower level than coal or fuel.

by pl-94 8y ago

secfirstmd 8y ago
Yes thanks I do know how many official deaths there were and I also know that alternative numbers in the low thousands are still under reported. We met with a variety of people there and the coal miner deaths alone are in the thousands. Liquidator deaths are far closer to tens of thousands. Oh and you think Chernobyl was bad as it was? If the inital coal miners hadn't been sent down in the first few days you would have been looking a far far far worse explosion that would have irradiated (and effectively made unihabitable hundreds of kilometers). So bad the USSR was plannning on the basis it would have had the radiation effects expected of a 4+ megaton nuclear weapon. Oh and to top it off they assumed the explosion would have also destroyed and set off the other still working reactors... Nuclear is not the answer.
- pl-94 8y ago
  Well comparison of Tchernobyl has its limits also. For sure now coal miners would not be sent on the core. But also, nowadays, nuclear power is a much more mature technology. 3rd generation (EPR) are extremely safe: it can resist to a 8m-height wave or a plane crash! Anyways, even by accepting a death roll of 4k (the biggest estimate of death for nuclear power) over 70 years, it has a lower death rate than wind turbines or PV (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...). Energy has a human price, and nuclear is definitely not the most costly energy source. The goal of our generation is to live in a world where coal and fuel are never used. Coal represents 36% of world CO2 emissions and kills every year several millions of people. But coal is one the cheapest and most reliable energy source, while being generally well politically accepted by populations. To remove coal, when you can't install hydro, you need nuclear. Please don't tell me wind turbines will save us from coal, because Danemark has enough wind turbines to run (and a perfect spot for offshore wind turbines) but no real storage tech, and thus its burns a lot of coal.

Good to know thanks. It remains an immensely lower level than coal or fuel.

by pl-94 8y ago

Good to know thanks. It remains an immensely lower level than coal or fuel.

Yes thanks I do know how many official deaths there were and I also know that alternative numbers in the low thousands are still under reported. We met with a variety of people there and the coal miner deaths alone are in the thousands. Liquidator deaths are far closer to tens of thousands. Oh and you think Chernobyl was bad as it was? If the inital coal miners hadn't been sent down in the first few days you would have been looking a far far far worse explosion that would have irradiated (and effectively made unihabitable hundreds of kilometers). So bad the USSR was plannning on the basis it would have had the radiation effects expected of a 4+ megaton nuclear weapon. Oh and to top it off they assumed the explosion would have also destroyed and set off the other still working reactors... Nuclear is not the answer.

pl-94 8y ago
Well comparison of Tchernobyl has its limits also. For sure now coal miners would not be sent on the core. But also, nowadays, nuclear power is a much more mature technology. 3rd generation (EPR) are extremely safe: it can resist to a 8m-height wave or a plane crash! Anyways, even by accepting a death roll of 4k (the biggest estimate of death for nuclear power) over 70 years, it has a lower death rate than wind turbines or PV (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...). Energy has a human price, and nuclear is definitely not the most costly energy source. The goal of our generation is to live in a world where coal and fuel are never used. Coal represents 36% of world CO2 emissions and kills every year several millions of people. But coal is one the cheapest and most reliable energy source, while being generally well politically accepted by populations. To remove coal, when you can't install hydro, you need nuclear. Please don't tell me wind turbines will save us from coal, because Danemark has enough wind turbines to run (and a perfect spot for offshore wind turbines) but no real storage tech, and thus its burns a lot of coal.