4 ms·
this is a testament to safety measures in aviation, not to some inherent safety of air travel. inherently, 99.9% of people will die if plane was to collide wit
by borism 16y ago
this is a testament to safety measures in aviation, not to some inherent safety of air travel.
inherently, 99.9% of people will die if plane was to collide with another plane or ground. That number is inherently much lower for car collisions.
so if we talk about nuclear safety, yes it is very safe compared to some other energy sources. But it also so much more dangerous when nuclear accidents happen than anything else.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago"But it also so much more dangerous when nuclear accidents happen than anything else." This is a facile assumption but it's almost certainly false. The Banqiao dam disaster killed 25,000 people directly, and destroyed 6 million buildings (it caused 145,000 further deaths due to famine). Such a disaster far outstrips even Chernobyl, which was about as maximally bad as any nuclear reactor accident can be (runaway fission reaction generating massive amounts of radionuclides; no worthwhile reactor containment structures; the reactor core melting down, catching on fire, and spewing huge amounts of radiation into the wind).
- borism 16y agonow please factor in duration and affected area and population into account when talking about severity of nuclear accidents, the same way you factored in hours and miles when you wrote about aviation safety.
- iuytghyjuyh 16y agoBut do you factor in the deaths in Iraq into the cost of oil fired power stations? And flooding in Bangladesh and sea level rises as part of the CO2 cost of coal?