4 ms·
"did not cause any harm" - for a very loose defintion of harm. Sure it could have been much worse. But enough ground and water was contaminated, and much more w
by step21 5y ago
"did not cause any harm" - for a very loose defintion of harm. Sure it could have been much worse. But enough ground and water was contaminated, and much more will be in the future when they run out of storage.
- Ericson2314 5y agoAnd how much ground water is contaminated with fossil fuel extraction?
- nsonha 5y agoRadio contamination is at a different level
- bananabreakfast 5y agoand who has actually been directly affected by this? I think it's your definition of harm that is too loose and overly inclusive. Your average oil spill does 100x more damage to the ecosystem and economy than fukushima
- rob74 5y agoSo Fukushima did no harm, because the 100 000 people who had to be evacuated were not harmed?
- Ericson2314 5y agoThey didn't need to be evacuated, or at least not so quickly --- at least in hindsight. I'm trying to compromise a bit with the "at least"s :)