4 ms·

Given the most favorable estimate for nuclear (0.2) and the most deadly for hydro (1.6) from that source, that's not even a single full magnitude. Flip the fav

Given the most favorable estimate for nuclear (0.2) and the most deadly for hydro (1.6) from that source, that's not even a single full magnitude. Flip the favorable/deadly bias around, and hydro looks to be safer (1.0 vs. 1.2). EDIT: Also, what's with that variance on nuclear? Another thing is that calculating the long term effects of nuclear fallout is quite difficult. How much evidence for and against could we have for rising cancer rates in Europe since 1986? (I don't actually know what the cancer rates are, but figuring out causation is probably very difficult, and may or may not have something to do with Chernobyl)

beerandt 7y ago
You sort of answered your own question re variance. I was shocked, after growing up hearing how horribly deadly Chernobyl was, to discover there were only 30 directly related deaths. Maybe 60 for eventual cancer deaths for people that were actually on-site. But some studies claim 60,000+ cancer related deaths, and growing up, I always assumed there was a morgue somewhere that had thousands of victims piling up in the weeks after meltdown. I felt duped to find that wasn't the case. And cancer rates in general have been rising for 80+ years, so yes, causation is difficult.
- bb88 7y ago
  > there were only 30 directly related deaths A better statement would have been that "the soviet union reported 31 immediate deaths at the time". That 30 number was highly disputed unto itself, and doesn't include fatal cancers directly caused by radiation exposure. There's an entire wikipedia page about it if you're interested in learning more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I'm familiar with all the various claims. Although I haven't seen anything seriously disputing the 31 on-site number, beyond +/-5. I said >>Maybe 60 for eventual cancer deaths for people that were actually on-site. It's the 10,000+ numbers that I take real issue with. And am skeptical of even the 4,000 "agreed-upon" estimate. I don't doubt radiation was released. I don't doubt radiation exposure can increase risk of cancer. But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site. I get that radiation plays a part in increased cancer risk. Claiming that there were 1,010,000 cancer deaths, but there should have only been 1,000,000, and not being able to tell which 10,000 were "caused by Chernobyl" is problematic for me. It diminishes the pain of the other 1,000,000. Is this logical? Idk Some studies in Fukushima claim over 1,000 more people have died by continued forced evacuation, than if they been had been allowed to return to the exclusion zone after a few weeks. It just gets hard to take these numbers seriously when you only have statistical speculation to rely on. Moreso to treat them with the same equivalence as deaths on-site.
    - bb88 7y ago
      > But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site. Agreed, but it's necessary if the government lies to you -- which of course was a frequent problem with the soviets. More recently, the Puerto Rico death toll for Hurricane Maria was just 64, and remained that way for a year. The only way it was eventually changed was proving (through statistical analysis) that the death toll was in fact higher.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        Yea, I have a major problem with how they did that one also. That's not proof or causation, it's at most correlation. But there's no way to normalize for variable independence. If a 99 year old was on life support when the power went out and died a month earlier than they otherwise would have, that got counted. But Maria didn't kill that person. I get that this is somewhat debatable semantics, but it shouldn't be. And that's my point. There are really two sets of numbers that are being called the same thing when they clearly are not.
        bb88 7y ago
        The death toll stayed for a year at 64, making it look like there was no real human suffering. The US President used that as political cover for denying the funds for disaster relief. You can say "See, Chernobyl wasn't so bad. Nuclear power accidents aren't as bad as they say." Meanwhile the mismanagement of Chernobyl is still regarded as one of the greatest atrocities that came from the Soviets. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/29/18285367/congress-disaster-relief-trump-puerto-rico https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/29/18285367/c... In the immediate aftermath, Trump repeatedly complained about how expensive it was to help the island, and said the hurricane wasn’t a “real catastrophe.” “If you look at the — every death is a horror, but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina and you look at the tremendous hundreds and hundreds of people that died and what happened here with a storm that was just totally overbearing. No one has ever seen anything like that. What is your death count?” he said during his visit after the hurricane.
- afiori 7y ago
  I do not want to dismiss those deaths, but the very terrible consequence of Chernobyl were ecological. In particular the fact that a significant area is going to be uninhabitable for a long time. Humanity could survive to even thousands of accident each killing thousands of people, but a thousand Chernobyl would be quite problematic.

beerandt 7y ago

You sort of answered your own question re variance. I was shocked, after growing up hearing how horribly deadly Chernobyl was, to discover there were only 30 directly related deaths. Maybe 60 for eventual cancer deaths for people that were actually on-site. But some studies claim 60,000+ cancer related deaths, and growing up, I always assumed there was a morgue somewhere that had thousands of victims piling up in the weeks after meltdown. I felt duped to find that wasn't the case. And cancer rates in general have been rising for 80+ years, so yes, causation is difficult.

bb88 7y ago
> there were only 30 directly related deaths A better statement would have been that "the soviet union reported 31 immediate deaths at the time". That 30 number was highly disputed unto itself, and doesn't include fatal cancers directly caused by radiation exposure. There's an entire wikipedia page about it if you're interested in learning more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
- beerandt 7y ago
  I'm familiar with all the various claims. Although I haven't seen anything seriously disputing the 31 on-site number, beyond +/-5. I said >>Maybe 60 for eventual cancer deaths for people that were actually on-site. It's the 10,000+ numbers that I take real issue with. And am skeptical of even the 4,000 "agreed-upon" estimate. I don't doubt radiation was released. I don't doubt radiation exposure can increase risk of cancer. But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site. I get that radiation plays a part in increased cancer risk. Claiming that there were 1,010,000 cancer deaths, but there should have only been 1,000,000, and not being able to tell which 10,000 were "caused by Chernobyl" is problematic for me. It diminishes the pain of the other 1,000,000. Is this logical? Idk Some studies in Fukushima claim over 1,000 more people have died by continued forced evacuation, than if they been had been allowed to return to the exclusion zone after a few weeks. It just gets hard to take these numbers seriously when you only have statistical speculation to rely on. Moreso to treat them with the same equivalence as deaths on-site.
  - bb88 7y ago
    > But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site. Agreed, but it's necessary if the government lies to you -- which of course was a frequent problem with the soviets. More recently, the Puerto Rico death toll for Hurricane Maria was just 64, and remained that way for a year. The only way it was eventually changed was proving (through statistical analysis) that the death toll was in fact higher.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Yea, I have a major problem with how they did that one also. That's not proof or causation, it's at most correlation. But there's no way to normalize for variable independence. If a 99 year old was on life support when the power went out and died a month earlier than they otherwise would have, that got counted. But Maria didn't kill that person. I get that this is somewhat debatable semantics, but it shouldn't be. And that's my point. There are really two sets of numbers that are being called the same thing when they clearly are not.
      - bb88 7y ago
        The death toll stayed for a year at 64, making it look like there was no real human suffering. The US President used that as political cover for denying the funds for disaster relief. You can say "See, Chernobyl wasn't so bad. Nuclear power accidents aren't as bad as they say." Meanwhile the mismanagement of Chernobyl is still regarded as one of the greatest atrocities that came from the Soviets. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/29/18285367/congress-disaster-relief-trump-puerto-rico https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/29/18285367/c... In the immediate aftermath, Trump repeatedly complained about how expensive it was to help the island, and said the hurricane wasn’t a “real catastrophe.” “If you look at the — every death is a horror, but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina and you look at the tremendous hundreds and hundreds of people that died and what happened here with a storm that was just totally overbearing. No one has ever seen anything like that. What is your death count?” he said during his visit after the hurricane.
afiori 7y ago
I do not want to dismiss those deaths, but the very terrible consequence of Chernobyl were ecological. In particular the fact that a significant area is going to be uninhabitable for a long time. Humanity could survive to even thousands of accident each killing thousands of people, but a thousand Chernobyl would be quite problematic.