2 ms·
> making half of European continent uninhabitable In what remotely plausible scenario would that have happened? Feel free to involve the USSR, reactor safety o
by Aachen 6y ago
> making half of European continent uninhabitable
In what remotely plausible scenario would that have happened? Feel free to involve the USSR, reactor safety of the time, etc.
Because from what I know, the fallout was definitely not making anything nearly that large "uninhabitable". Deaths would go up, but so did they from the coal plants that were subsequently built (we're at 3 million deaths a year, if memory serves; that's the number you have to beat to make nuclear less attractive than coal from a more sciency perspective than "what maybe could have happened but didn't, ha-haa!").
- pvaldes 6y ago> In what remotely plausible scenario would that have happened? If all people would just have run and quit the area letting the reaction finish. > we're at 3 million deaths a year Lets assume that this number is real, the comparison would be still wrong. 1) There are much more coal plants in the planet than nuclear plants so this is like saying than a car contaminates less than 1,000 bicycles. Yes, can be true but it does not mean that replacing all bicycles by cars would reduce contamination. Replacing all coal plants by nuclear plants would increase and equilibrate really fast the death-count in both groups. Absolute numbers are useless here. 2) When talking about coal plants, the short term, middle and long term effects of contamination are included. With nuclear just the first 90 days were taken. This is a shady and dishonest way to do statistics