3 ms·
A comment from the author I found interesting (with some minor edits, mainly for spelling): > "All the evacuations at Fukushima were unnecessary, and in the ca
by a_shovel 4y ago
A comment from the author I found interesting (with some minor edits, mainly for spelling):
> "All the evacuations at Fukushima were unnecessary, and in the case of the frail [or] elderly murderously so. If there had been no evacuations, few members of the public would have received more than 1 mSv/day peak and some 1600 lives would have been saved, and some 100,000 less lives sadly disrupted. Even the EPA now counsels shelter-in-place rather than evacuation.
> At Chernobyl, it probably made sense to evacuate the 45,000 non-workers from Pripyat for a month or so. (Most of the plant workers never left. ) All the other evacuations were tragically unnecessary. The 1990 evacuations were completely senseless as is making the Exclusion Zone off-limits when the dose rates almost everywhere in the zone are below average planet wide and have been for a very long time."
- rocqua 4y agoThose statements (not yours) are quite surprising, and seem falsifiable. Anyone have the expertise to judge whether the factual claims are true?
- Vecr 4y agoI don't know about Chernobyl, but there should not have been any nuclear related evacuations for Fukushima. People who wanted to leave on their own could. Evacuations might have been a good idea in some places for the worst flooding and earthquake zones, but I don't know that it was even possible to get that information in advance, and even if it was the Japanese government would probably not act on it, then or now.