4 ms·

It wasn't that bad at all. In every discussion about Charnobyl I link this (translation from Polish) http://goo.gl/Djbag http://goo.gl/Djbag > So what Chernoby

by zalew 16y ago

It wasn't that bad at all. In every discussion about Charnobyl I link this (translation from Polish) http://goo.gl/Djbag http://goo.gl/Djbag > So what Chernobyl has taught us? > That nuclear energy is the safest source of energy currently available. The Chernobyl disaster was the worst we can imagine a nuclear power plant. In addition, Chernobyl defied every rule of safety. This property was one big scandal. But that's not all. Following the outbreak of the reactor were released into the atmosphere huge amounts of radioactive substances, which reached even to Antarctica. And what? And nothing. Killed 31 people - less cluttered than in January hall in Chorzow. Dangerously contaminated was less than a square kilometer of land.That's it!

bluedanieru 16y ago
It killed 31 people more or less immediately. Thousands of cancers are linked to it.
- lukeschlather 16y ago
  How many cancers would you wager could be linked to emissions from a coal plant of comparable energy output? What if there was a tsunami and it blew up? What if we took the average number of fatalities per gigawatt-hour generated for coal and compared that to the worst-case ever scenario for nuclear, Chernobyl? Does anyone have these figures? I think we could all really use them to put this whole thing in proper perspective.
  - beefman 16y ago
    Coal mining killed more than 6,000 people in China in 2004 (a typical year). Early deaths due to air pollution from coal combustion are measured in the tens of thousands per year in the United States. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe0809178 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe0809178 Chernobyl was the worst possible nuclear accident. It caused between 50 and 5000 early deaths. As a major industrial accident, it was only average. It pales in comparison to the 1984 Bhopal disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster It took a long time to convince myself of this, but it really is quite obvious: because of the energy density difference of ~ 1,000,000 between fission and everything else, just about everything you'd care to measure about fission is going to be at least an order of magnitude better. That's because the amount of energy we're interested in is roughly constant, so the upper bound on destruction is roughly the same, but the material flows for fission are a million times smaller. Actually, appropriate use of fission should increase the demand for energy somewhat, and this would be a very good thing.
    - lukeschlather 16y ago
      That's still basically an anecdotal argument.
  - bluedanieru 16y ago
    I'm right there with you on this. I live in Tokyo and I still hope they build more reactors in Japan after this (no more GE Mark 1s though, please). There is no question that nuclear power is cleaner and safer than any fossil fuel-derived power-generation technology. Just correcting an error/omission.
ugh 16y ago
The interviewee is pretty far out, away from anything what pretty much all scientific studies of the Chernobyl catastrophe concluded.

by zalew 16y ago

bluedanieru 16y ago

It killed 31 people more or less immediately. Thousands of cancers are linked to it.

lukeschlather 16y ago
How many cancers would you wager could be linked to emissions from a coal plant of comparable energy output? What if there was a tsunami and it blew up? What if we took the average number of fatalities per gigawatt-hour generated for coal and compared that to the worst-case ever scenario for nuclear, Chernobyl? Does anyone have these figures? I think we could all really use them to put this whole thing in proper perspective.
- beefman 16y ago
  Coal mining killed more than 6,000 people in China in 2004 (a typical year). Early deaths due to air pollution from coal combustion are measured in the tens of thousands per year in the United States. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe0809178 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe0809178 Chernobyl was the worst possible nuclear accident. It caused between 50 and 5000 early deaths. As a major industrial accident, it was only average. It pales in comparison to the 1984 Bhopal disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster It took a long time to convince myself of this, but it really is quite obvious: because of the energy density difference of ~ 1,000,000 between fission and everything else, just about everything you'd care to measure about fission is going to be at least an order of magnitude better. That's because the amount of energy we're interested in is roughly constant, so the upper bound on destruction is roughly the same, but the material flows for fission are a million times smaller. Actually, appropriate use of fission should increase the demand for energy somewhat, and this would be a very good thing.
  - lukeschlather 16y ago
    That's still basically an anecdotal argument.
- bluedanieru 16y ago
  I'm right there with you on this. I live in Tokyo and I still hope they build more reactors in Japan after this (no more GE Mark 1s though, please). There is no question that nuclear power is cleaner and safer than any fossil fuel-derived power-generation technology. Just correcting an error/omission.

ugh 16y ago

The interviewee is pretty far out, away from anything what pretty much all scientific studies of the Chernobyl catastrophe concluded.