4 ms·
Perhaps, but the real reality behind this 1.3 years figure is that someone somewhere dies too early. That's something people won't easily accept - especially if
by astrobe_ 4y ago
Perhaps, but the real reality behind this 1.3 years figure is that someone somewhere dies too early. That's something people won't easily accept - especially if we talk about cancer, one of the most feared diseases.
It's like saying, you can let your children go alone in the streets, stats show that it "only" reduces their lives by 1.3 years in average. Ain't gonna fly with any parent.
Yeah, that's emotional arguments. But feeling safe and good is also valuable. That being said, it seems that we have no choice but rely on nuclear power until we find a viable alternative.
- panick21_ 4y agoThat wasn't the point of the argument. The point was that even if you hit them with the nuclear bomb the effects are not nearly as large as what people imagine with a nuclear reactor event. So people think of nuclear reactor accident as if it was like 10x nuclear bombs when in effect its barley shows up in the data at all.
- astrobe_ 4y agoI think you imagine what people imagine. People are very well aware of what a nuclear meltdown means. They have Chernobyl and Fukushima as well-documented cases: populations forced to move from their home permanently, contamination of the food supply chain that basically ruins the economic activity of the region, and the extreme difficulty to prove that your health issues are long-terms effect of the disaster.
- panick21_ 4y agoYes and most of those things are pure misinformation. East Germans panicking about nuclear mushrooms is simply imagination and misunderstanding of the science.