4 ms·
Meh... This anecdotally suggests that hydro is less safe than predicted (vis a vis climate change). There's plenty of similar catastrophes related to nuclear.
by deusum 6y ago
Meh... This anecdotally suggests that hydro is less safe than predicted (vis a vis climate change). There's plenty of similar catastrophes related to nuclear.
Comparing apples to oranges and all that.
Evacuating 38mil is impressive, no less.
- orwin 6y agoThere is 3 catastrophes related to nuclear. The only one where radiation actually killed people was Chernobyl. Displacement of hundred thousands, considered contaminated thus excluded by their peers, probably caused more life-years lost than the radiation itself. The UNSCEAR (GIEC group1 equivalent for radiation) rapport on Fukushima is enlightening. Nuclear have a lot of drawback too (mining pollution, waste disposal) but is probably the energy ressource that killed the less people/MWh produced, and for sure the one destroying the less ecosystem/MWh. I used to be anti-nuclear for the wrong reasons until an observation internship in a hospital were i learned how dangerous radiation actually was, but realistically, until a new breakthrough on superconductor is found and allow us a less expensive, more lasting magnetic containment for plasma, i don't see any other energy that can replace coal/gaz.
- flukus 6y agoThere were plenty of near misses too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#Nuclear_meltdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...