4 ms·
World's worst industrial disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Industrial_disasters https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
by croh 7y ago
World's worst industrial disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Industrial_disasters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disaster...
Union carbide is now owned by Dow Chemicals. Dow chemicals itself notorious for being one of the most toxic producing company on planet.
Even though there is great awareness in millenials about climate change, people has to understand earth as whole organism. To fix nature we must have to eliminate such chemical companies along with nukes.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y agoOnly if you exclude gunpowder production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanggongchang_Explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanggongchang_Explosion
- croh 7y agoThanks for link. Chemicals and nukes are still more dangerous than gunpowder. They cause mutation affecting upcoming generations too. People die slowly without even realizing causes.
- arcticbull 7y agoRight in theory except if you look at it holistically nuclear energy does way less harm than competing energy sources. In terms of deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity, nuclear weighs in well below solar, wind and hydro. Even if you include Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and Fukushima. [1] It also generates basically negligible quantities of waste which can be used in different processes or safely stored underground. The total amount of waste produced so far is ~one football field. From the entire history of nuclear energy in America. Humans are constantly exposed to low levels of background radiation, and surprisingly enough, we show very few negative effects from low levels of exposure even beyond that. People are much more scared of radiation than they should be. [1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
- croh 7y agoWe need to invest more in research & safe solutions. Building tools, which by accident can eliminate large piece of humanity and damage nature severly, is not an ideal solution.
- arcticbull 7y agoWe've got an almost hundred year track record being two orders of magnitude safer than solar panels. More people die falling off roofs installing solar panels than from nuclear power. We have invested in safe solutions. It's safe. That's why its so expensive to build plants. I think for perspective you should consider the single worst nuclear incident in the history of the world, Chernobyl, over the full course of time, will have caused 4000 deaths. Meanwhile, the worst hydro incident, the Bangqiao Dam [1] failure led to 230,000 deaths. 57.5X more deaths, and indelibly changed the landscape. Yet nobody seems to have a problem with hydro. Fear of nuclear is irrational. Respect it, don't fear it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
- kortilla 7y agoYou do know chemicals occur in nature, right? Have you signed the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, which has killed millions of people?
- xyzzyz 7y agoTo fix nature we must have to eliminate such chemical companies along with nukes. Once you eliminate the chemical companies running the Haber-Bosch process, you can also dispose of the nukes by using them to put starving billions out of misery.
- zapdrive 7y agoGetting downvoted because you made sense.
- creato 7y agoCompanies like this don't operate for fun. What are they producing that is so toxic, can it be replaced or disused completely, and/or are they behaving significantly worse than other companies fulfilling this demand would be?
- kortilla 7y agoDow did not own it during the disaster and was not responsible for it. Your post is off topic.