4 ms·
since chernobyl there have been a few very major civilian reactor meltdowns, and zero deaths caused by them
by replygirl 4y ago
since chernobyl there have been a few very major civilian reactor meltdowns, and zero deaths caused by them
- pvaldes 4y agoPlease don't lie about proven facts. It's embarrassing to read it again and again.
- replygirl 4y agozero deaths tmi, zero deaths fukushima, what am i missing here?
- pvaldes 4y agoBetter information, probably. And the will to search for it.
- replygirl 4y agowhere am i wrong
- pfdietz 4y agoThis claim ignores the statistical deaths from cancer from radiation released by Fukushima. These deaths cannot be detected, but that doesn't mean they can be legitimately asserted to be zero.
- replygirl 4y agoby "statistical" are you referring to LNT-based predictions?
- pfdietz 4y agoYes. And before you go off on the nuclear-stan argument against LNT (which the NRC has soundly rejected, btw), realize that LNT helps nuclear. Without it, regulation would not be "we can't detect the effect, so we'll assume it's zero", but rather "we can't detect the effect, so we'll go with the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence". That would increase the projected cancer deaths vs. what LNT would predict. NRC denial of petition on LNT: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671
- replygirl 4y agounscear rejects lnt and this is what they have to say about fukushima: (q) No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the FDNPS accident. The Committee’s revised estimates of dose are such that future radiation-associated health effects are unlikely to be discernible. The Committee believes that, on the balance of available evidence, the large increase, relative to that expected, in the number of thyroid cancers detected among exposed children is not the result of radiation exposure. Rather, they are the result of ultrasensitive screening procedures that have revealed the prevalence of thyroid abnormalities in the population not previously recognized. An increase in the incidence of cancers is unlikely to be discernible in workers for leukaemia, total solid cancers or thyroid cancer. The Committee has insufficient information to reach an informed judgement on the risk of cataracts;
- pfdietz 4y agoThat is not a rejection of LNT.
- replygirl 4y agosorry for the confusion, i'm not saying it is, i'm saying unscear as an organization have rejected lnt, and this is their conclusion on health effects in fukushima, i.e. i don't accept your claim that analyses disregarding lnt necessarily overproject cancer deaths i would also say that unscear is a more credible organization than the nrc when it comes to measuring and predicting effects of radiation, and that their conclusion ought to be the canonical one, as should be their position on lnt
- prvit 4y agoAre you perhaps mistakenly attributing deaths caused by the (now known to have been unnecessary) evacuation from Fukushima to the reactor meltdown?
- pvaldes 4y agoIf evacuation was sooo unnecessary, how do you would explain that people has not returned to the area yet?
- replygirl 4y agopeople have returned. reopening happened gradually over the last 6-7 years and as of earlier this year is complete
- prvit 4y agoPlace was hit by a tsunami and evacuated, leaving behind a bunch of rapidly declining real estate and no services. Not a super attractive place to return to. But yeah, people did return in the end.
- dewey 4y agoDying from cancer a few years after the disaster still counts, not zero.
- onion2k 4y agoCoal power stations release a lot more radiation than nuclear power stations. If you're concerned about cancer then fossil fuels should be a priority ahead of nuclear.
- dewey 4y ago> then fossil fuels should be a priority ahead of nuclear We are capable to focus on more than one thing at a time. Of course it doesn't make sense to instantly shut down all of nuclear power stations, just like it doesn't make sense to retire every fossil fuel powered engine at the same time or shut down coal from one day to the next. It's a long and slow process.
- pvaldes 4y agowhataboutism will not magically solve the problems with nuclear energy
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- replygirl 4y agowe're discussing problems with nuclear and their specific material impacts relative to alternatives to nuclear. comparison != whatabout
- samus 4y agoIt is very relevant since decommissioning a nuclear power plant requires building new fossil-powered ones, or reopening mothballed ones. Renewables + storage simply can't replace them completely yet.
- replygirl 4y agowhich civilian meltdown since chernobyl has attributed cancer deaths? i'm not aware of any confirmed for tmi or fukushima, where the exposure was measured as safe by a wide margin. maybe i'm missing another meltdown?
- jansan 4y agoIn 2013 high profile German politician Claudia Roth of the Green party posted on facebook that the Fukushima disaster caused 16000 deaths, simply attributing all deaths from the Tohoku earthquake to the Fukushima disaster. It is really difficult to discuss with those people on a rational level.
- pvaldes 4y agoClaudia Roth does not represent other than herself