3 ms·
Chernobyl killed millions or tens of millions of people: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-fuels-pollution-deaths-research https://www
by trashtester 4y ago
Chernobyl killed millions or tens of millions of people:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-fuels-pollution-deaths-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-f...
Let's say Chernobyl didn't happen, then I would guess around 10% of those fossil fuel deaths would have been prevented.
Quick calculation 8.7mill/year * 10 % * 30 years = 26.1 million.
So, lets say that the pessimistic side of "mainstream" research on number of deaths from Chernobyl is 26000, the "nuclear scare" effect still caused maybe 1000x as many deaths.
Even if I'm off by an order of magnitude, that's still 100x.
- cyphar 4y agoI agree that anti-nuclear sentiment has killed millions of people, but the comparison being made here is how different forms of power kill people. In that comparison, including fossil fuel deaths as "deaths caused by Chernobyl" is not reasonable since it obfuscates which source of power is causing the deaths.
- trashtester 4y agoIrony can be hard to communicate in text. Sorry for causing a misunderstanding. My point was that I fully support that nuclear is not only safe, but a technology that saves millions of lives every year, since without it, the world would use coal instead. Furthermore, if more coal could be replaced by nuclear, it would not only delay global warming, but also potentially save tens of millions of lives. The extra cost per GWh is more than made up for in health benefits. But if the costs are seen as too high for current powerplant models, it should be possible to bring the costs down a lot if they are mass-produced and some more to gain from slighly relaxing regulations where the price/benefit of regulations is unreasonable.