3 ms·

> Chernobyl The worst designed reactor that led to 60 deaths ? > Fukushima As in, the reactor that was struck with a generational earthquauke and where no on

by screye 3y ago

> Chernobyl The worst designed reactor that led to 60 deaths ? > Fukushima As in, the reactor that was struck with a generational earthquauke and where no one died? ________ Compare this to other energy sources Coal - 1500 [1] Coal waste -12000[2] You can keep going down this[3] list. Nuclear disasters are a mere blip. Only solar is any safer. [1]April 26, 1942: Benxihu Colliery disaster in Benxi, Liaoning, China. 1,549 workers died, in the worst coal mine accident ever in the world [2] December 1952: The Great Smog of London caused by the burning of coal, and to a lesser extent wood, killed 12,000 people within days to months due to inhalation of the smog. [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
I don't think you are including the deaths in following years from the radiation poisoning. Those numbers are just 'the day of'. But also. I agree, Coal industry has a lot of deaths too. Far more year over year. And things like settling ponds should be more regulated. Lot of deaths from coal waste holding damns failing. So. Think you are little cherry picking stats to show Nuclear "isn't that bad", and Coals "very bad". When truth is really somewhere in middle. Think in this, the disconnect, you are discounting the potential much higher risk potential with Nuclear. A coal damn giving way, kills everyone in the downstream town, maybe hundreds. But if worst case Nuclear disaster, has much higher potential, millions. Really in Chernobyl and Fukushima, we got lucky, they turned out to be bad, close calls, but in each we were saved at the last minute, so not so bad. Both were minutes away from much higher releases. Both could have wiped out their entire country. Potentially, Ukraine and Japan could both be gone today, not exist as countries, by the time you factor into half the country farmland gone, and major cities un-inhabitable. That sounds dramatic. But think that is what a risk matrix would point out. So how much risk can we tolerate? Is Climate Change risk finally in the public mind enough to overcome the Nuclear risk?

by screye 3y ago

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

I don't think you are including the deaths in following years from the radiation poisoning. Those numbers are just 'the day of'. But also. I agree, Coal industry has a lot of deaths too. Far more year over year. And things like settling ponds should be more regulated. Lot of deaths from coal waste holding damns failing. So. Think you are little cherry picking stats to show Nuclear "isn't that bad", and Coals "very bad". When truth is really somewhere in middle. Think in this, the disconnect, you are discounting the potential much higher risk potential with Nuclear. A coal damn giving way, kills everyone in the downstream town, maybe hundreds. But if worst case Nuclear disaster, has much higher potential, millions. Really in Chernobyl and Fukushima, we got lucky, they turned out to be bad, close calls, but in each we were saved at the last minute, so not so bad. Both were minutes away from much higher releases. Both could have wiped out their entire country. Potentially, Ukraine and Japan could both be gone today, not exist as countries, by the time you factor into half the country farmland gone, and major cities un-inhabitable. That sounds dramatic. But think that is what a risk matrix would point out. So how much risk can we tolerate? Is Climate Change risk finally in the public mind enough to overcome the Nuclear risk?