3 ms·
You don't need to bet when you can just read.
by vibragiel 15y ago
You don't need to bet when you can just read.
- Derbasti 15y agoAlright, so the article claims 0.04 d/TWh, 0.037 of which are a direct result of Chernobyl at a claimed cost of 4000 lives. Other sources claim 1000000 deaths. That would be a 250-fold increase to 9.25 d/TWh from Chernobyl alone. That does not look all that well now. Just sain'
- Natsu 15y agoEven Greenpeace seems to claim at most roughly a quarter million deaths. Thirty one people were killed directly, everything else is the result of trying to measure the increase in cancer and such. Clearly, the real cost was far higher than those 31, but how high is a good question. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Chernobyl_dis... Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[10] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggest it could reach 4,000.[11] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[12] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[13] A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 excess deaths occurred between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination.[14]