4 ms·
Yes, because even despite the mismanagement of the disaster, the timescales involved allowed them to implement the protections needed. You’re arguing for the GP
by vermilingua 7y ago
Yes, because even despite the mismanagement of the disaster, the timescales involved allowed them to implement the protections needed. You’re arguing for the GP.
- notahacker 7y agoPersonally I think may require evacuation of entire cities for decades to mitigate casualties is a risk factor worth taking into account, except perhaps when building nuclear reactors in deserted areas. Similarly, the fact that we've largely contained it by shutting entire countries down is not an argument for COVID-19 actually being one of the least harmful pathogens humanity has encountered.
- DagAgren 7y agoDefinitely worth taking into account! But when you do, it's still a lot less damaging overall than things like coal.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tsukikage 7y agoSo, what I'm hearing in this thread is that we should evacuate entire areas around coal burning power plants for decades, but we choose not to.
- notahacker 7y agoI'd probably shut them down altogether where possible. But disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that the radiation exposure from living in Pripyat is comparable to that of living somewhere near coal plants.
- arcticbull 7y ago> But disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that the radiation exposure from living in Pripyat is comparable to that of living somewhere near coal plants. Yes and no, in a way it's worse because Pripyat was evacuated, so people were moved to low radiation areas. Coal plants, people don't realize just how much radiation is generated by them. Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. [1] "Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas." Honestly it sounds much risker to live anywhere near a coal plant than anywhere near a nuclear plant (which for the record have had 30 years of safety upgrades since Chernobyl). Not to mention, the last RBMK reactor at the Chernobyl power plant was left operating until the year 2000. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...