2 ms·
>>ignoring all the additional deaths by cancer Which are, at absolute most and at the most pessimistic estimate, at few thousands excess deaths[0]. The same es
by gambiting 4y ago
>>ignoring all the additional deaths by cancer
Which are, at absolute most and at the most pessimistic estimate, at few thousands excess deaths[0]. The same estimates for coal at are thousands.....per year, not for the last 40 years.
[0] https://ascopost.com/issues/may-25-2021/chernobyl-at-35-years-an-oncologist-s-perspective/ https://ascopost.com/issues/may-25-2021/chernobyl-at-35-year...
- cute_boi 4y agoWell, your comparison might also be invalid because we haven't used nuclear power to the scale coal is used. Maybe if there were many nuclear plants we might have seen many disaster?
- ajuc 4y agoBoth nuclear and coal were used more than solar. And solar caused more deaths per MWh produced than nuclear (cause people fall off roofs while installing/maintaining it). If you think scale matters - then you should also think that solar is more risky than nuclear by your own logic (because we're not using it on as big scale).