4 ms·

First off, you're definitely cherry picking -- or to put it more bluntly, and to use your own measuring stick: "lying" -- if you try to sum up fatality risks of

by vanusa 6y ago

First off, you're definitely cherry picking -- or to put it more bluntly, and to use your own measuring stick: "lying" -- if you try to sum up fatality risks of nuclear by referring only Fukushima, and including (in that part of your post) any mention of Chernobyl. For which, using the same website you used (ourworlindata.org -- I'll let you find the link) we have estimates of up to 60,000 worldwide fatalities due to the radiation release from that incident. Seconds - when the author brought up "acute risk" he was referring to the 30 km exclusion zone and forced evacuation of 150,000 people (after Fukushima). In other words - you're accusing the author of making unbalanced comparison (and not only that, basically calling him out as a fraud and/or idiot for doing so). But apparently not even attempting to make a balanced comparison yourself.

jjeaff 6y ago
I assume they left Chernobyl out because it was due to out of date technology that is no longer in use today and essentially cannot happen with the way nuclear power plants work today.
- vanusa 6y ago
  Another way of looking at disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima is not so much as failures of technology -- but of bad policy, and it's generalization: hubris. For which there doesn't seem to be an expiration date.
sweeneyrod 6y ago
> if you try to sum up fatality risks of nuclear by referring only Fukushima, and including (in that part of your post) any mention of Chernobyl Good thing I'm not doing that then! I'm sure what would give you that impression, since I do quite clearly say "Even if you take the higher estimates for the risk of nuclear (the ones that assume it hasn't got safer since Chernobyl)". But in case there's any confusion, whether or not you include Chernobyl doesn't change things that much. The two studies in that link give figures of 0.07 and 0.01 deaths/TWH for nuclear. In comparison, wind is 0.035. Coal is 25.

by vanusa 6y ago

jjeaff 6y ago

I assume they left Chernobyl out because it was due to out of date technology that is no longer in use today and essentially cannot happen with the way nuclear power plants work today.

vanusa 6y ago
Another way of looking at disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima is not so much as failures of technology -- but of bad policy, and it's generalization: hubris. For which there doesn't seem to be an expiration date.

sweeneyrod 6y ago

> if you try to sum up fatality risks of nuclear by referring only Fukushima, and including (in that part of your post) any mention of Chernobyl Good thing I'm not doing that then! I'm sure what would give you that impression, since I do quite clearly say "Even if you take the higher estimates for the risk of nuclear (the ones that assume it hasn't got safer since Chernobyl)". But in case there's any confusion, whether or not you include Chernobyl doesn't change things that much. The two studies in that link give figures of 0.07 and 0.01 deaths/TWH for nuclear. In comparison, wind is 0.035. Coal is 25.