3 ms·
Wouldn't it be more accurately characterized as a natural + nuclear disaster? Clearly things would have been less bad without the nuclear plant.
by osigurdson 3y ago
Wouldn't it be more accurately characterized as a natural + nuclear disaster? Clearly things would have been less bad without the nuclear plant.
- Gud 3y agoNo, I don’t think so. In that case it would be just as accurate to describe it as roof cave in disaster, as I am sure a great deal of people died when their roofs fell down on them.
- mpweiher 3y agoNo, not really. This is what is regularly done in the press in Germany, and it looks like essentially like this: there was (an earthquake + tsunami) AND A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IN FUKUSHIMA IN WHICH 15000 PEOPLE DIED. Now this is technically not a lie, just a "slight" skewing of emphasis and grouping, but it's how we've managed to anchor in the German population the "fact" that there was a horrible nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima where tens of thousands died, which we think was caused by a Tsunami or something, but that part doesn't really matter. When, to belabor the obvious, that is not at all what happened. The Tsunami killed over 15000. The accident at the plant caused by the Tsunami killed no one. The over-eager evacuation, on the other hand, has been made responsible for a number of deaths. So of course, technically it is true that there was a natural disaster and also a nuclear accident caused by that natural disaster. A lot of accidents were caused by the natural disaster that day, so singling out just that one seems a bit weird. And yes, the natural disaster was made slightly worse by every piece of technical infrastructure that failed to withstand this unprecedented earthquake + tsunami. For example all the seawalls built around towns that were, like the one around the plant, built to handle 7M waves. And were swept away by 14m waves that proceeded to kill thousands.