4 ms·

Fukushima, "1 death from radiation, 2202 from the evacuation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.

Fukushima, "1 death from radiation, 2202 from the evacuation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

pmontra 7y ago
As awful as it can sound it's not about the deaths. It's about people not being able to enter that area basically forever, on their time scale. If Fukushima was in New Yersey the USA would have lost New York City.
- beerandt 7y ago
  I'm starting to think the permanent evacuation zones are based more on arbitrary scare tactics than actual danger, at least after the acute event is under control. Maybe you don't want to live there. But entering doesn't seem to be the death sentence it's made out to be, based on the people that never left Chernobyl and returning population in Japan. If global warming is as certain and as dangerous as what's being claimed, the risk of contaminating a few thousand acres (or even miles) with radioactivity is certainly worth it to save the world. Plus Fukushima basically disproved the China syndrome scare we've been fed for 40+ years.
- keanzu 7y ago
  "This solar farm in the southern state of Tamil Nadu in India has a capacity of 648 megawatts and covers an area of 10 square kilometres." [1] That's 10sqkm that's been lost basically forever, or as long as it humans require solar power for only 648MW during the day when the sun is shining. Fukushima Daiichi was 5,306 MW and generated that 24hrs a day. [1] https://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/5-largest-solar-farms-in-the-world/ https://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/5-largest-solar-farms-i...
- bazzert 7y ago
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11/it-sounds-crazy-but-fukushima-chernobyl-and-three-mile-island-show-why-nuclear-is-inherently-safe/#73230fe81688 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11... Michael Shellenberger is one of my favorite writers on this topic. The radiation around Fukushima is less than the naturally occurring radiation in Colorado.

pmontra 7y ago

As awful as it can sound it's not about the deaths. It's about people not being able to enter that area basically forever, on their time scale. If Fukushima was in New Yersey the USA would have lost New York City.

beerandt 7y ago
I'm starting to think the permanent evacuation zones are based more on arbitrary scare tactics than actual danger, at least after the acute event is under control. Maybe you don't want to live there. But entering doesn't seem to be the death sentence it's made out to be, based on the people that never left Chernobyl and returning population in Japan. If global warming is as certain and as dangerous as what's being claimed, the risk of contaminating a few thousand acres (or even miles) with radioactivity is certainly worth it to save the world. Plus Fukushima basically disproved the China syndrome scare we've been fed for 40+ years.
keanzu 7y ago
"This solar farm in the southern state of Tamil Nadu in India has a capacity of 648 megawatts and covers an area of 10 square kilometres." [1] That's 10sqkm that's been lost basically forever, or as long as it humans require solar power for only 648MW during the day when the sun is shining. Fukushima Daiichi was 5,306 MW and generated that 24hrs a day. [1] https://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/5-largest-solar-farms-in-the-world/ https://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/5-largest-solar-farms-i...
bazzert 7y ago
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11/it-sounds-crazy-but-fukushima-chernobyl-and-three-mile-island-show-why-nuclear-is-inherently-safe/#73230fe81688 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11... Michael Shellenberger is one of my favorite writers on this topic. The radiation around Fukushima is less than the naturally occurring radiation in Colorado.