6 ms·

Here is another chart: https://www.hilfe-tschernobyl.de/s/cc_images/cache_2436040664.jpg?t=1369573955 https://www.hilfe-tschernobyl.de/s/cc_images/cache_2436040

Here is another chart: https://www.hilfe-tschernobyl.de/s/cc_images/cache_2436040664.jpg?t=1369573955 https://www.hilfe-tschernobyl.de/s/cc_images/cache_243604066... It shows the raise of thyroid cancer in Belarus. Radiation accidents are quite convenient as those who suffer from them spread over a very long time while you read always that only one person died from Fukushima for example.

xorfish 7y ago
There was also much less radiation that got out in the Fukushima accident. Levels are so low, that you can't make predictions that are bases on real data. You can only extrapolate the cancer risk from higher doses. Every coal and gas plant does around the same harm as a Fukushima accident every year if you look at the deaths they cause. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
arcticbull 7y ago
Just as an FYI, in terms of deaths per terawatt-hour, nuclear is about an order of magnitude safer than the next safest contender, solar, and two orders of magnitude safer than coal. [1, 2] Also consider that the worst ever accident in the history of nuclear power, Chernobyl of course, is expected to in the full course of time, kill 4,000 people (including those who killed themselves because they thought they were "contaminated"). On the other hand, the worst hydro accident, the Bangqiao dam failure, killed 171,000 people in the span of likely about 10 whole minutes. [3, 4] It bears calling out separately for emphasis since you mentioned it, if you're going to get any cancer, just pray it's thyroid cancer -- it has a 98% survival rate [5]. The thyroid is removed and you take thyroxin for the rest of your life, but otherwise, you're good to go. If you're in an affected area adding it to your routine screening should be more than sufficient. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [2] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam [5] https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/thyroid-cancer/statistics https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/thyroid-cancer/statistic...
- roenxi 7y ago
  In this instance, order of magnitude would mean in a team of 10 people killed producing solar energy 9 of them get to live if we use nuclear. The data you sourced doesn't consistently support that in link [1]; it suggests more like 1 in 2 so isn't really fair to call that an order of magnitude. It is just much better. But don't mind me, I remain as confused as ever about why people don't feel these statistics end the argument over nuclear.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    I usually use [2] as my source (where the order of magnitude is fully supported -- 0.04 vs 0.44 deaths per terawatt hour for rooftop solar). I believe [1] is referencing the totality of the solar market, including both rooftop and industrial solar. Rooftop solar is more dangerous due to the risks associated with installing and servicing panels on an incline a couple of stories off the ground. [1] notably excludes the Bangqiao dam as that would raise the hydro number probably an order of magnitude by itself. Their biomass number also likely excludes air pollution. Either way, to your point, the results are pretty darn clear no matter how you slice and dice the numbers.
    - notahacker 7y ago
      [2] is pretty cranky, to put it mildly. Guy is quite insistent that thyroid cancer deaths even the nuclear industry acknowledged were down to Chernobyl shouldn't count, but on the other hand he's quite happy to attribute an arbitrarily large proportion of roofing accidents to solar power and scale that up by the TWH requirements of a nuclear plant because obviously there's nowhere other than pitched roofs to install solar panels. If we're looking at the peer reviewed stuff, nuclear isn't an order of magnitude safer than renewables, it's broadly similar to modern renewables after taking into account the evacuation of entire cities to mitigate the nuclear casualty figures...
    - brutt 7y ago
      If Sun will blow and destroy whole Earth, it still will be the safest form of energy generation per TWh, so solar energy wins again.

xorfish 7y ago

There was also much less radiation that got out in the Fukushima accident. Levels are so low, that you can't make predictions that are bases on real data. You can only extrapolate the cancer risk from higher doses. Every coal and gas plant does around the same harm as a Fukushima accident every year if you look at the deaths they cause. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

arcticbull 7y ago

Just as an FYI, in terms of deaths per terawatt-hour, nuclear is about an order of magnitude safer than the next safest contender, solar, and two orders of magnitude safer than coal. [1, 2] Also consider that the worst ever accident in the history of nuclear power, Chernobyl of course, is expected to in the full course of time, kill 4,000 people (including those who killed themselves because they thought they were "contaminated"). On the other hand, the worst hydro accident, the Bangqiao dam failure, killed 171,000 people in the span of likely about 10 whole minutes. [3, 4] It bears calling out separately for emphasis since you mentioned it, if you're going to get any cancer, just pray it's thyroid cancer -- it has a 98% survival rate [5]. The thyroid is removed and you take thyroxin for the rest of your life, but otherwise, you're good to go. If you're in an affected area adding it to your routine screening should be more than sufficient. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [2] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam [5] https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/thyroid-cancer/statistics https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/thyroid-cancer/statistic...

roenxi 7y ago
In this instance, order of magnitude would mean in a team of 10 people killed producing solar energy 9 of them get to live if we use nuclear. The data you sourced doesn't consistently support that in link [1]; it suggests more like 1 in 2 so isn't really fair to call that an order of magnitude. It is just much better. But don't mind me, I remain as confused as ever about why people don't feel these statistics end the argument over nuclear.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  I usually use [2] as my source (where the order of magnitude is fully supported -- 0.04 vs 0.44 deaths per terawatt hour for rooftop solar). I believe [1] is referencing the totality of the solar market, including both rooftop and industrial solar. Rooftop solar is more dangerous due to the risks associated with installing and servicing panels on an incline a couple of stories off the ground. [1] notably excludes the Bangqiao dam as that would raise the hydro number probably an order of magnitude by itself. Their biomass number also likely excludes air pollution. Either way, to your point, the results are pretty darn clear no matter how you slice and dice the numbers.
  - notahacker 7y ago
    [2] is pretty cranky, to put it mildly. Guy is quite insistent that thyroid cancer deaths even the nuclear industry acknowledged were down to Chernobyl shouldn't count, but on the other hand he's quite happy to attribute an arbitrarily large proportion of roofing accidents to solar power and scale that up by the TWH requirements of a nuclear plant because obviously there's nowhere other than pitched roofs to install solar panels. If we're looking at the peer reviewed stuff, nuclear isn't an order of magnitude safer than renewables, it's broadly similar to modern renewables after taking into account the evacuation of entire cities to mitigate the nuclear casualty figures...
  - brutt 7y ago
    If Sun will blow and destroy whole Earth, it still will be the safest form of energy generation per TWh, so solar energy wins again.