3 ms·
My point is to not blow off Fukushima... and you respond by blowing off Fukushima. Maybe approach it from the other direction: what was the impact of Fukushima
by jmull 4y ago
My point is to not blow off Fukushima... and you respond by blowing off Fukushima.
Maybe approach it from the other direction: what was the impact of Fukushima?
(You wouldn't really argue the sum total impact was one human life, right?)
- chris_va 4y agoI think perhaps you didn't take the "one of worst nuclear accidents in history" part as much of an acknowledgement as intended. Disasters are not the norm, so focusing on the disaster intrinsically misses the global cost/benefit trade-off, which I think seems more important to people trying to have broad policy discussions. To your point, the primary impact was the large scale evacuation. Horrible for anyone living immediately nearby. On the scale of terrible power-plants, maybe worse than living next to an active coal plant, but better than living downstream of a collapsed hydro-dam.