3 ms·

Again the evacuation zone was larger due to the nature of the plant, so yes it caused more stress, to more people than a similar incident in a coal plan would h

Again the evacuation zone was larger due to the nature of the plant, so yes it caused more stress, to more people than a similar incident in a coal plan would have. It still is an exceptional incident and it is a ridiculously small death toll compared to the "normal" operation of coal plants yearly death toll... but it isn't a reason to minimize the numbers. As for the 1 direct death, I was referring to this part of my source: > In 2018, the Japanese government reported that one worker has since died from lung cancer as a result of radiation exposure from the event. Going by the official statement, I let them do the judging, they don't really have an interest in over-reporting as far as I know.

arcticbull 3y ago
> Again the evacuation zone was larger due to the nature of the plant, so yes it caused more stress, to more people than a similar incident in a coal plan would have. Do you have data for that? Or as compared to some other chemical or industrial plant? Again, I think this just has to do with a failure to have an adequate evacuation plan, not the specific land use.
- throw101010 3y ago
  For Fukushima the evac zone was 20km around the plant. A similar scenario in the US would see a 50 miles (80km) radius evac zone recommended by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (at least the the time of it happening in Japan: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-evacuations-in-nuclear-meltdowns/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-evacuations-... ). I don't think I have ever heard of such large zones for other industrial disasters, the estimatated maps I've seen for Bhopal, one of the if not the worst industrial chemical disaster ever, had a radius for the gas spread of about 7km (and it killed a lot more people really quickly). It is of course annecdotal, but each disaster has its own circumstances: wind, water/soil contamination, etc. that impose different measures to take... but in general nuclear disasters have a much wider radius for the fallout, that's why the security/processes for it are way more demanding and generally successfully applied. But the main point was that we can't discount these risks and their results (deaths) when a disaster happened, as rare as they are (thankfully). They are part of it, and counting these deaths is just honest, as I said other sources of energy in the course of their "normal" operation kill way more people and destroy our environment in the process. It's a no-brainer to choose nuclear power over them.

arcticbull 3y ago

> Again the evacuation zone was larger due to the nature of the plant, so yes it caused more stress, to more people than a similar incident in a coal plan would have. Do you have data for that? Or as compared to some other chemical or industrial plant? Again, I think this just has to do with a failure to have an adequate evacuation plan, not the specific land use.

throw101010 3y ago
For Fukushima the evac zone was 20km around the plant. A similar scenario in the US would see a 50 miles (80km) radius evac zone recommended by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (at least the the time of it happening in Japan: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-evacuations-in-nuclear-meltdowns/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-evacuations-... ). I don't think I have ever heard of such large zones for other industrial disasters, the estimatated maps I've seen for Bhopal, one of the if not the worst industrial chemical disaster ever, had a radius for the gas spread of about 7km (and it killed a lot more people really quickly). It is of course annecdotal, but each disaster has its own circumstances: wind, water/soil contamination, etc. that impose different measures to take... but in general nuclear disasters have a much wider radius for the fallout, that's why the security/processes for it are way more demanding and generally successfully applied. But the main point was that we can't discount these risks and their results (deaths) when a disaster happened, as rare as they are (thankfully). They are part of it, and counting these deaths is just honest, as I said other sources of energy in the course of their "normal" operation kill way more people and destroy our environment in the process. It's a no-brainer to choose nuclear power over them.