3 ms·

> Air travel is nowadays pretty safe, but this has been achieved over decades of trial and error, with each major error costing dozens if not hundreds of lives

> Air travel is nowadays pretty safe, but this has been achieved over decades of trial and error, with each major error costing dozens if not hundreds of lives - not something we can affords with nuclear technology. Why not? We accept aircraft accidents as one of the costs of air travel. Why do we not accept power station accidents as one of the costs of having power? The worst nuclear power station accidents have killed far fewer people than the worst aircraft accidents. Why is one so feared and the other not?

brazzy 7y ago
> The worst nuclear power station accidents have killed far fewer people than the worst aircraft accidents. This is just simply a lie.
- perilunar 7y ago
  Chernobyl killed less than 100 people. 31 direct deaths, later raised to 54. There is considerable debate about expected deaths due to increases in cancer rates, but there is no consensus on the numbers (ranging from 4,000 to 60,000 projected deaths), and not even consensus about whether cancer risk due to exposure to radiation is even linear or not (linear no-threshold vs radiation hormesis). In contrast, there have been more than 500 aircraft accidents with 50 or more deaths. Aviation accidents have killed 83,000 people since 1970. Top 3 Nuclear Power accidents: Chernobyl: 54 deaths, SL-1: 3 deaths, Fukushima Daiichi: 1 death Top 3 Aviation accidents: Tenerife disaster: 583 deaths, JAL Flight 123: 520 deaths, 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision: 349 deaths
  - brazzy 7y ago
    > Chernobyl killed less than 100 people. 31 direct deaths, later raised to 54. Repeating a lie does not make it true. The official numbers are completely worthless because the Soviet leadership massively mis- and underdocumented pretty much everything related to the accident. > There is considerable debate about expected deaths due to increases in cancer rates, but there is no consensus on the numbers (ranging from 4,000 to 60,000 projected deaths), and not even consensus about whether cancer risk due to exposure to radiation is even linear or not (linear no-threshold vs radiation hormesis). ...so you'll simply assume that all that radioactive material spread far and wide over huge swaths of Asia and Europe had no ill effects at all?

brazzy 7y ago

> The worst nuclear power station accidents have killed far fewer people than the worst aircraft accidents. This is just simply a lie.

perilunar 7y ago
Chernobyl killed less than 100 people. 31 direct deaths, later raised to 54. There is considerable debate about expected deaths due to increases in cancer rates, but there is no consensus on the numbers (ranging from 4,000 to 60,000 projected deaths), and not even consensus about whether cancer risk due to exposure to radiation is even linear or not (linear no-threshold vs radiation hormesis). In contrast, there have been more than 500 aircraft accidents with 50 or more deaths. Aviation accidents have killed 83,000 people since 1970. Top 3 Nuclear Power accidents: Chernobyl: 54 deaths, SL-1: 3 deaths, Fukushima Daiichi: 1 death Top 3 Aviation accidents: Tenerife disaster: 583 deaths, JAL Flight 123: 520 deaths, 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision: 349 deaths
- brazzy 7y ago
  > Chernobyl killed less than 100 people. 31 direct deaths, later raised to 54. Repeating a lie does not make it true. The official numbers are completely worthless because the Soviet leadership massively mis- and underdocumented pretty much everything related to the accident. > There is considerable debate about expected deaths due to increases in cancer rates, but there is no consensus on the numbers (ranging from 4,000 to 60,000 projected deaths), and not even consensus about whether cancer risk due to exposure to radiation is even linear or not (linear no-threshold vs radiation hormesis). ...so you'll simply assume that all that radioactive material spread far and wide over huge swaths of Asia and Europe had no ill effects at all?