4 ms·
> The same can't be said for, say, hydroelectric dams. Those are arguably even more dangerous than nuclear plants. Imagine a hydroelectric dam "Chernobyl". At
by mixermachine 5y ago
> The same can't be said for, say, hydroelectric dams. Those are arguably even more dangerous than nuclear plants.
Imagine a hydroelectric dam "Chernobyl".
At least the mid to longterm consequences would be softer.
I think they would have figured out a few years later how to rebuild everything.
Chernobyl (>35 years ago) on the other side is still buzzing and the rebuilding of the sarcophagus is ongoing and will be for a long time
- nwiswell 5y ago> Imagine a hydroelectric dam "Chernobyl". At least the mid to longterm consequences would be softer. Well except the millions of people with emotional scars because their relatives died and they were displaced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Yellow_River_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Yellow_River_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
- deadbeeves 5y agoDid you not see the predictions of what would have happened if the Three Gorges Dam had failed? A dam failing is utterly catastrophic. Chernobyl by comparison is small potatoes, even if no one had done anything. (Also, the comparison isn't 1-to-1, since Chernobyl wasn't attacked. I have no idea what the failure modes of modern reactors are when damaged by munitions.)
- VintageCool 5y agoEstimated death toll from the Banqiao Dam failure ranges from 26,000 to 240,000.