4 ms·

Tell that to the victims of that catastrophe.

theshrike79 5y ago
The "victims" were victims of Soviet policy, not of nuclear energy. A majority of the deaths due to fallout would've been prevented if The Party would've admitted they messed up and told everyone to eat canned food for a few weeks. Iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days. Maybe even distributed more iodine pills for the population. But nope, The Party could do no wrong and was always right, so they did nothing and said nothing.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  This is a typical Western oversimplification of communist regimes. If there is a Party, it is to blame, of course. But you are wrong. The casualties of such incidents are coming not just from the poor immediate responses, but also from long term environmental, social and economic effects. Even if in Fukushima disaster people did not die from acute radiation syndrome, there are still several thousands of deaths attributed to the disaster. Same with Chernobyl, Mayak etc.
  - theshrike79 5y ago
    Yes, people died in the panic resulting from the evacuation in Fukushima. But is that the fault of nuclear power? Do you "attribute" deaths caused by other energy production means the same way? Coal kills people every day. People die when installing wind farms, do they count?
    - ivan_gammel 5y ago
      Let me be more clear about my comment above: I was responding to a message claiming that nuclear disaster produced a wildlife reserve. I do not care about statistics and causes of death in this context, because they are simply irrelevant (and of course I know those facts). If someone said that Nazis postponed climate change by reducing population of Europe, would you be equally engaged in discussing the exact numbers?
fsflover 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#/media/File:Death_rates_from_energy_production_per_TWh_(including_solar).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#/media/File:Deat...
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  I’m well aware of the statistics, but your link is irrelevant to my comment. It is simply insensitive to picturing Chernobyl as something beneficial for the environment.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    You are trying to show something very unlikely as having a serious danger. Statistics is very relevant here.
    - ivan_gammel 5y ago
      What part of „insensitive“ did you read as misrepresentation of danger?

The "victims" were victims of Soviet policy, not of nuclear energy. A majority of the deaths due to fallout would've been prevented if The Party would've admitted they messed up and told everyone to eat canned food for a few weeks. Iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days. Maybe even distributed more iodine pills for the population. But nope, The Party could do no wrong and was always right, so they did nothing and said nothing.

ivan_gammel 5y ago
This is a typical Western oversimplification of communist regimes. If there is a Party, it is to blame, of course. But you are wrong. The casualties of such incidents are coming not just from the poor immediate responses, but also from long term environmental, social and economic effects. Even if in Fukushima disaster people did not die from acute radiation syndrome, there are still several thousands of deaths attributed to the disaster. Same with Chernobyl, Mayak etc.
- theshrike79 5y ago
  Yes, people died in the panic resulting from the evacuation in Fukushima. But is that the fault of nuclear power? Do you "attribute" deaths caused by other energy production means the same way? Coal kills people every day. People die when installing wind farms, do they count?
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    Let me be more clear about my comment above: I was responding to a message claiming that nuclear disaster produced a wildlife reserve. I do not care about statistics and causes of death in this context, because they are simply irrelevant (and of course I know those facts). If someone said that Nazis postponed climate change by reducing population of Europe, would you be equally engaged in discussing the exact numbers?

fsflover 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#/media/File:Death_rates_from_energy_production_per_TWh_(including_solar).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#/media/File:Deat...

ivan_gammel 5y ago
I’m well aware of the statistics, but your link is irrelevant to my comment. It is simply insensitive to picturing Chernobyl as something beneficial for the environment.
- fsflover 5y ago
  You are trying to show something very unlikely as having a serious danger. Statistics is very relevant here.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    What part of „insensitive“ did you read as misrepresentation of danger?