4 ms·
Not likely, as the gap is about 4000x http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-
by extension 15y ago
Not likely, as the gap is about 4000x
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...
- rbanffy 15y agoYou underestimate the power of a good couple INES-7 incidents.
- tjogin 15y agoI think you underestimate the power of coal plant incidents and hydropower incidents. They're no joke. Chernobyl, an INES-7 killed 56 people. Plus another 4000 from radiation. As previously linked, check these out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease The Great Smog of London killed twelve million people. Banqiao Dam killed 171 000 and destroyed homes for another eleven million people.
- rbanffy 15y agoMinamata and Bhopal were chemical plants, not power generation plants. Dam failures are always ugly, but they are rather predictable and preventable. And the Great Smog of London killed more people than Chernobyl but was caused by low-grade coal burning in low-tech furnaces. Even if we buy the suspicious number of 12 million, it's not a coal power plant accident. Don't get me wrong. I like nuclear. I just know it's dangerous and the consequences of one accident can be pretty scary and long lasting.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- extension 15y agoActually, it's twelve thousand. That was a typo.