4 ms·
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2017/11/03/470349.htm https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2017/11/... That single coal powe
by 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 agoHow did you conclude that it killed more people than the Chernobyl explosion?
- throwawaylinux 5y agoBecause 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 agoIf 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 agoNo 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 agoI 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.