4 ms·
> even if your nuclear reactor goes kaboom, it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up. increased cancer rates in Belarus
by trhway 7y ago
> even if your nuclear reactor goes kaboom, it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up.
increased cancer rates in Belarus (especially in Mogilev and Homel regions - the regions which took the brunt of Chernobyl and where the breast cancer rate for example is double) produce several thousand extra deaths per year. I wonder how a natural gas power plant - the present day alternative to nuclear - would be able to kill so many people.
- ohyes 7y agoChernobyl is not the gold standard for comparison, it was a completely different design (far more dangerous, honestly) from the BWR/PWRs that were built everywhere else.
- manfredo 7y agoFossil fuels produce an estimated > 4 million deaths per year [1]. This isn't even considering the hundreds of millions or more that are at risk of displacement due to climate change, and the conflict that will likely be associated with this displacement. Also, can you substantiate your claim of several thousand extra deaths per year? I'm reading an estimated 5,000 additional cases of cancer (not all of them fatal) in all of Europe over the span of 20 years [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Cancer_assessments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Cancer_asse...