3 ms·

The above figures hold true for disabilty-adjusted life years. Coal does all that too, it's just spread across wider areas and longer time. Japan is somewhat u

The above figures hold true for disabilty-adjusted life years. Coal does all that too, it's just spread across wider areas and longer time. Japan is somewhat unique in how little flat land there is, typically there would be miles and miles of uninhabited space around a nuke power plant. Screening thousands of Chernobyl cleanup workers didn't discover elevated cancer risks, as far as I remember the only group that was measurably affected was the people who refused to relocate.

mrtksn 6y ago
My argument is that you can’t look at dead bodies per kW/h and claim one is better than the other. It doesn’t incorporate the relocation of potentially tens of millions of people on a single incident. It doesn’t incorporate the political complexities and so on. People don’t simply look at the probability of getting killed and be fine with being uprooted if something happens. People don’t want to risk being relocated overnight. The death thing isn’t even a concern, most people don’t even believe that it would happen to them.
- jojobas 6y ago
  People are afraid of being relocated but not afraid of being killed? Well then, check how many people were relocated due to hydro and coal quarries.
  - mrtksn 6y ago
    And they are not happy about it many of the times. Protests are widespread when such facilities are to be built. It’s not happening overnight, they usually get compensated handsomely but people still don’t want it. On nuclear, it’s much more hardcore, you leave overnight to never come back and it’s very unlikely to get fair compensation. What is hard to understand that people don’t want this to happen to them? Death? Big deal, people face death through the entire history to preserve their way of life. There are professions where death is an occupational hazard. Nobody cares about death. What's scary is to lose your life in a sense of losing everything that you worked for, some people commit suicide when they lose something that they cared and build through the years.

mrtksn 6y ago

My argument is that you can’t look at dead bodies per kW/h and claim one is better than the other. It doesn’t incorporate the relocation of potentially tens of millions of people on a single incident. It doesn’t incorporate the political complexities and so on. People don’t simply look at the probability of getting killed and be fine with being uprooted if something happens. People don’t want to risk being relocated overnight. The death thing isn’t even a concern, most people don’t even believe that it would happen to them.

jojobas 6y ago
People are afraid of being relocated but not afraid of being killed? Well then, check how many people were relocated due to hydro and coal quarries.
- mrtksn 6y ago
  And they are not happy about it many of the times. Protests are widespread when such facilities are to be built. It’s not happening overnight, they usually get compensated handsomely but people still don’t want it. On nuclear, it’s much more hardcore, you leave overnight to never come back and it’s very unlikely to get fair compensation. What is hard to understand that people don’t want this to happen to them? Death? Big deal, people face death through the entire history to preserve their way of life. There are professions where death is an occupational hazard. Nobody cares about death. What's scary is to lose your life in a sense of losing everything that you worked for, some people commit suicide when they lose something that they cared and build through the years.