> It's sad that some people would rather see the climate change than to accept that nuclear is not that dangerous. Not only Chernobyl had one of the worst desig

> It's sad that some people would rather see the climate change than to accept that nuclear is not that dangerous. Not only Chernobyl had one of the worst designs, which would not be approved today, but its impact is also widely overstated. The explosion of the reactor at Chernobyl was a gargantuan disaster which still has to be managed. An exclusion zone of roughly 1,000 sq. miles was created. The USSR suppressed information about the disaster, but it killed some thousands of people, we don't know how many, and it cost an unimaginable amount of money and resources to clean up and manage over the decades following. According to Wikipedia [1]: > In 2018, Ukraine spent five to seven percent of its national budget on recovery activities related to the Chernobyl disaster. Granted, Chernobyl was a faulty design, but there was also the disaster at Fukushima, which also required the creation of an exclusion zone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster