3 ms·

The point is that the people didn’t need to be evacuated.

mikeyouse 4y ago
Some of them likely would have been completely fine and completely unexposed to dangerous levels of radiation.. but not all of them.. and it was impossible to know which were which until weeks and months later when they did more thorough testing. Many local areas were reporting over radiation of >500 millisieverts/year, which is ~150x the typical background dose. The famous XKCD Radiation chart shows a bunch of Fukushima related doses -- it was actually pretty dangerous for people close to the exclusion zone! https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/
Ma8ee 4y ago
Why do you think so? To me the argument sounds like: > no one died of radiation, since they were evacuated. The people who did die, because of the evacuation, shouldn’t count because they didn’t die from the radiation. The evacuation wasn’t necessary, which is proven since no one died from radiation. And the notion that more people would have died from the radiation if they didn’t evacuate is just ignored. Well, no one died in the fire. The only people that died did because they jumped from windows. But that no one died in the fire proves that the fire wasn’t dangerous and they didn’t need to jump in the first place.
- roenxi 4y ago
  The downside of nuclear power is, potentially & in rare circumstances, a large number of people have to move. I don't want to trivialise that - it is a big cost. But it isn't exactly like we're talking a threat to anyone's health and well-being. And when I say "rare" I mean once, globally, every 25 years with 1970s plant designs. It is quite a bit safer now with the absurd safety standards people make nuclear keep. Basically, although costly, it is a tiny risk once we estimate [danger x likelihood = risk].
  - Ma8ee 4y ago
    The biggest downside right now is that it is to slow and to expensive to build new plants to make any meaningful impact in either gas deliveries from Russia or climate disaster.
  - _0w8t 4y ago
    The problem with nuclear plants is the risk is really unknown. One cannot say it is small. For example, nobody considered that Russia would fire artillery against nuclear reactors. And now a threat of attacks with powerful conventional weapons against nuclear reactors and waste processing/storage has to be considered very seriously. Similarly we cannot assume that technological progress would not allow a single terrorist with right equipment to trigger another Chernobyl.
    - roenxi 4y ago
      > For example, nobody considered that Russia would fire artillery against nuclear reactors. I think in that sentence, the scary part is not the nuclear reactor part. And my understanding is nuclear plant design includes consideration of missile impacts.

Some of them likely would have been completely fine and completely unexposed to dangerous levels of radiation.. but not all of them.. and it was impossible to know which were which until weeks and months later when they did more thorough testing. Many local areas were reporting over radiation of >500 millisieverts/year, which is ~150x the typical background dose. The famous XKCD Radiation chart shows a bunch of Fukushima related doses -- it was actually pretty dangerous for people close to the exclusion zone! https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/

Ma8ee 4y ago

Why do you think so? To me the argument sounds like: > no one died of radiation, since they were evacuated. The people who did die, because of the evacuation, shouldn’t count because they didn’t die from the radiation. The evacuation wasn’t necessary, which is proven since no one died from radiation. And the notion that more people would have died from the radiation if they didn’t evacuate is just ignored. Well, no one died in the fire. The only people that died did because they jumped from windows. But that no one died in the fire proves that the fire wasn’t dangerous and they didn’t need to jump in the first place.

roenxi 4y ago
The downside of nuclear power is, potentially & in rare circumstances, a large number of people have to move. I don't want to trivialise that - it is a big cost. But it isn't exactly like we're talking a threat to anyone's health and well-being. And when I say "rare" I mean once, globally, every 25 years with 1970s plant designs. It is quite a bit safer now with the absurd safety standards people make nuclear keep. Basically, although costly, it is a tiny risk once we estimate [danger x likelihood = risk].
- Ma8ee 4y ago
  The biggest downside right now is that it is to slow and to expensive to build new plants to make any meaningful impact in either gas deliveries from Russia or climate disaster.
- _0w8t 4y ago
  The problem with nuclear plants is the risk is really unknown. One cannot say it is small. For example, nobody considered that Russia would fire artillery against nuclear reactors. And now a threat of attacks with powerful conventional weapons against nuclear reactors and waste processing/storage has to be considered very seriously. Similarly we cannot assume that technological progress would not allow a single terrorist with right equipment to trigger another Chernobyl.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > For example, nobody considered that Russia would fire artillery against nuclear reactors. I think in that sentence, the scary part is not the nuclear reactor part. And my understanding is nuclear plant design includes consideration of missile impacts.