3 ms·

And in addition, it’s been ten years since anybody has had to abandon a city because of an accident, so that’s good.

• himinlomax 5y ago
  The tsunami alone killed 10000 people, displaced many more. The nuclear accident that followed killed 1 (one). So nuclear made the disaster 0.01% worse.
  • Kon5ole 5y ago
    But nuclear is also the reason why it's still an ongoing expensive issue 10 years later.
• namdnay 5y ago
  Fukushima was hardly an accident, it was a tsunami that killed a thousand times more people than the ensuing nuclear power plant leak ever did
  • geysersam 5y ago
    Not very deadly, luckily yes. But cleaning up the accident has been expensive.
    • Abroszka 5y ago
      It IS expensive. And will take another 30 years to complete.
• sqldba 5y ago
  Apparently every accident that has happened will never happen again and is a once off. So they don’t count.
  • somnic 5y ago
    It's not that they don't count. They count just as much as air pollution, heat stroke or hypothermia, from fossil fuels and expensive or unreliable energy. Nuclear has costs, yes. Weigh them up against the costs of every other alternative, rather than singling them out.