3 ms·

> This is only based on the official number of deaths (31 I think?). This is known to be false. Actually, it's based on the UNSCEAR number of 4000 deaths inclu

> This is only based on the official number of deaths (31 I think?). This is known to be false. Actually, it's based on the UNSCEAR number of 4000 deaths including latent cancers. Don't use the Ukraine political numbers. Use the UN panel of scientist numbers. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h...

nl 4y ago
On https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (which I think is the best source) they use 433 deaths from Chernobyl and 2314 from Fukushima. If they used your 4000 number then Nuclear becomes twice as unsafe as solar. (But the point here isn't the number of deaths in the past - because that was moderated by the strong anti-nuclear movements. The risk is higher usage leads to dramatic increases, because deaths are dominated by accidents not constant one-off deaths like from pollution which are more predicable)
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  > 2314 from Fukushima Woah I did not realize they used that figure. Everyone agrees that there were between 0 and 1 deaths from radiation due to Fukushima (vs between 31 and 4000 radiation deaths at Chernobyl). There were deaths caused by the prolonged evacuation at Fukushima, which must be where this figure comes from.
  - nl 4y ago
    > There were deaths caused by the prolonged evacuation at Fukushima, which must be where this figure comes from. That seems a pretty reasonable thing to consider since it is one of (or the?) major risk with nuclear power.
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      Debatable, since many of the dose rates many evacuated from are below the level that causes any measurable harm. Temporary short term evac is understandable while the event unfolded but they should have given people dose rates and health info (e.g that less than 300 mSv/yr doesnt cause measurable harm) and let people decide for themselves.

nl 4y ago

On https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (which I think is the best source) they use 433 deaths from Chernobyl and 2314 from Fukushima. If they used your 4000 number then Nuclear becomes twice as unsafe as solar. (But the point here isn't the number of deaths in the past - because that was moderated by the strong anti-nuclear movements. The risk is higher usage leads to dramatic increases, because deaths are dominated by accidents not constant one-off deaths like from pollution which are more predicable)

acidburnNSA 4y ago
> 2314 from Fukushima Woah I did not realize they used that figure. Everyone agrees that there were between 0 and 1 deaths from radiation due to Fukushima (vs between 31 and 4000 radiation deaths at Chernobyl). There were deaths caused by the prolonged evacuation at Fukushima, which must be where this figure comes from.
- nl 4y ago
  > There were deaths caused by the prolonged evacuation at Fukushima, which must be where this figure comes from. That seems a pretty reasonable thing to consider since it is one of (or the?) major risk with nuclear power.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    Debatable, since many of the dose rates many evacuated from are below the level that causes any measurable harm. Temporary short term evac is understandable while the event unfolded but they should have given people dose rates and health info (e.g that less than 300 mSv/yr doesnt cause measurable harm) and let people decide for themselves.