5 ms·

Second worst nuclear incident by radioactivity released -- 66 diagnosed cases of chronic radiation syndrome, estimated 200 additional cases of cancer. Amazing

Second worst nuclear incident by radioactivity released -- 66 diagnosed cases of chronic radiation syndrome, estimated 200 additional cases of cancer. Amazing when you compare with just coal mining deaths and premature death estimate from coal fired electricity generation over the years. It boggles the mind how the fossil fuel / environmentalist lobby anti-nuclear fear propaganda ever took hold in total absence of fact, but I have to hand it to them.

dylan604 5y ago
> fear propaganda ever took hold in total absence of fact, i mean, isn't that like exactly how it is always done?
AutumnCurtain 5y ago
The key is to create your toxic plume slowly over decades instead of in a big showy bang
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2017/11/03/470349.htm https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2017/11/... That single coal power station explosion I found on the first page of search killed more people than the Chernobyl explosion. You joke, but the real key is to buy governments, advertising, and "activists".
  - jhgb 5y ago
    How did you conclude that it killed more people than the Chernobyl explosion?
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Because it apparently killed between 32 and 43 depending what you read. 31 people died as an immediate result of Chernobyl. Long term radiation from Chernobyl may kill anywhere from 100 to thousands of premature deaths, but I also don't count the continual nuclear and chemical disaster that is a normally operating coal power plant or its contribution to premature deaths, let alone its contribution to climate change. Only the deaths as a direct result of the explosion, just to go a little easier on coal.
  - ttyprintk 5y ago
    If notable estimates of Chernobyl are 50 (official) - 4000 (UN), you’re expecting this coal accident’s toll to rise above the 32 reported?
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      No just the deaths immediately caused by the explosions. If we want to compare the total scale of each disaster from start to finish, in terms of premature deaths then the coal disaster begins the day the boilers were fired up. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-p...
      - ttyprintk 5y ago
        I think you’re right. Not to sound crass, but a coal plant that explodes (and isn’t rebuilt) seems healthier than one lasting 30 years.
andbberger 5y ago
green rabies: an incurable disease caused by exposure to greenpeace and leaded gasoline whose symptoms include an irrational fear of spicy rocks, a misunderstanding of base loads and renewables, an overwhelming desire to turn Bolivia into a giant battery, the verbal tick 'solar energy is getting exponentially cheaper', foaming at the mouth, being wrong on the internet and wet feet.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zeptonix 5y ago
Sure, because these numbers are guaranteed to be 100% accurate and no one would have any interest in under-counting them.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Fossil fuel industry on the other hand, is a bastion of ethics and integrity and would never stoop so low. Good point.
_Microft 5y ago
> It boggles the mind how the fossil fuel / environmentalist lobby anti-nuclear fear propaganda ever took hold in total absence of fact The broad public was introduced to the atomic age by wiping out tens of thousands and humankind had to live for decades under the prospect of a sudden nuclear holocaust with no way to do anything about it. I would not be so quick to blame people alone for rejecting this „atomic age“. In my opinion the history of „nuclear“ is one PR/image fuckup after the other. This is absolutely a problem of its own making. I‘m physicist, I think that nuclear would be a nice addition in our carbon-free energy toolbox but I also understand why the public opinion is what it is - especially in Germany which was designated playground of nuclear superpowers during the Cold War.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I wasn't quick to blame people alone because I didn't blame them at all. What's more, your idea that atomic bombings of Japan was behind the irrational nuclear scare is incorrect. From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629620301432 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962... Opinion polls in the 1950s and 1960s showed remarkably high approval of nuclear power [25], [38], [39], [40]. Attitudes regarding construction near a poll respondent’s residence were also positive, with multiple surveys showing majority or plurality approval [15]. I mostly blame the fossil fuel lobby and the anti nuclear "environmentalist" movement.

dylan604 5y ago

> fear propaganda ever took hold in total absence of fact, i mean, isn't that like exactly how it is always done?

AutumnCurtain 5y ago

The key is to create your toxic plume slowly over decades instead of in a big showy bang

throwawaylinux 5y ago
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2017/11/03/470349.htm https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2017/11/... That single coal power station explosion I found on the first page of search killed more people than the Chernobyl explosion. You joke, but the real key is to buy governments, advertising, and "activists".
- jhgb 5y ago
  How did you conclude that it killed more people than the Chernobyl explosion?
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Because it apparently killed between 32 and 43 depending what you read. 31 people died as an immediate result of Chernobyl. Long term radiation from Chernobyl may kill anywhere from 100 to thousands of premature deaths, but I also don't count the continual nuclear and chemical disaster that is a normally operating coal power plant or its contribution to premature deaths, let alone its contribution to climate change. Only the deaths as a direct result of the explosion, just to go a little easier on coal.
- ttyprintk 5y ago
  If notable estimates of Chernobyl are 50 (official) - 4000 (UN), you’re expecting this coal accident’s toll to rise above the 32 reported?
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    No just the deaths immediately caused by the explosions. If we want to compare the total scale of each disaster from start to finish, in terms of premature deaths then the coal disaster begins the day the boilers were fired up. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-p...
    - ttyprintk 5y ago
      I think you’re right. Not to sound crass, but a coal plant that explodes (and isn’t rebuilt) seems healthier than one lasting 30 years.

andbberger 5y ago

green rabies: an incurable disease caused by exposure to greenpeace and leaded gasoline whose symptoms include an irrational fear of spicy rocks, a misunderstanding of base loads and renewables, an overwhelming desire to turn Bolivia into a giant battery, the verbal tick 'solar energy is getting exponentially cheaper', foaming at the mouth, being wrong on the internet and wet feet.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zeptonix 5y ago

Sure, because these numbers are guaranteed to be 100% accurate and no one would have any interest in under-counting them.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Fossil fuel industry on the other hand, is a bastion of ethics and integrity and would never stoop so low. Good point.

_Microft 5y ago

> It boggles the mind how the fossil fuel / environmentalist lobby anti-nuclear fear propaganda ever took hold in total absence of fact The broad public was introduced to the atomic age by wiping out tens of thousands and humankind had to live for decades under the prospect of a sudden nuclear holocaust with no way to do anything about it. I would not be so quick to blame people alone for rejecting this „atomic age“. In my opinion the history of „nuclear“ is one PR/image fuckup after the other. This is absolutely a problem of its own making. I‘m physicist, I think that nuclear would be a nice addition in our carbon-free energy toolbox but I also understand why the public opinion is what it is - especially in Germany which was designated playground of nuclear superpowers during the Cold War.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
I wasn't quick to blame people alone because I didn't blame them at all. What's more, your idea that atomic bombings of Japan was behind the irrational nuclear scare is incorrect. From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629620301432 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962... Opinion polls in the 1950s and 1960s showed remarkably high approval of nuclear power [25], [38], [39], [40]. Attitudes regarding construction near a poll respondent’s residence were also positive, with multiple surveys showing majority or plurality approval [15]. I mostly blame the fossil fuel lobby and the anti nuclear "environmentalist" movement.