3 ms·
> Those three world-famous accidents killed fewer than 80 people in total. Take away Chernobyl, and it's probably one. That sounds oversimplified and biased, a
by pb060 4y ago
> Those three world-famous accidents killed fewer than 80 people in total. Take away Chernobyl, and it's probably one.
That sounds oversimplified and biased, and makes a potentially good article unreliable to my eyes. It doesn’t count people who have died as a result of radiation exposure, doesn’t mention the Chernobyl exclusion zone, the radioactive cloud, all the health issues that it has caused, etc.
- ttfkam 4y agoDoes it mention that ZERO non-Soviet municipal power reactors were built with graphite moderation, willful withholding of critical information from those managing the power plant, and folks ready to run a "safety test" that was reckless on its face to laymen let alone nuclear engineers? This isn't even like judging all cars based upon the safety of a 1970s Ford Pinto. This is like judging the safety of all modern production electric cars on the safety record of F1 race cars in the 1970s. Also bear in mind that health tracking in the exclusion zone and surrounding areas was only published after Chernobyl. We have no idea what the baseline was prior to the event in that part of the Soviet Union (and may never know).
- pb060 4y agoYes I think that the article should have mentioned your that too. I wasn't trying to make any comparison, my point is that by not being objective you don't do any favour to nuclear energy, and probably give more arguments to people who are against it.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago"health issues"—like birth defects, significantly reduced lifespans, teeth falling out, cancers et al. I can't stress enough how unpleasant these "health issues" are.