3 ms·
The Oroville Dam didn't collapse and the crisis didn't make a single victim Is there a debate about those raw facts? https://damfailures.org/case-study/orovil
by natmaka 2y ago
The Oroville Dam didn't collapse and the crisis didn't make a single victim
Is there a debate about those raw facts?
https://damfailures.org/case-study/oroville-dam-california-2017/ https://damfailures.org/case-study/oroville-dam-california-2...
> handled with care
> proper planning and prevention
I agree. Everyone can fail. Letting very dangerous tiny material undetectable without a complex equipment and active for years getting out then be dispersed on huge areas by wind/rain/... is a nuclear exclusive. Moreover the most risky type of renewables (dams) has more inertia (it cannot trigger an accident in mere minutes, it is more robust). As we now have industrial renewables there is no reason to deploy nuclear anymore.
- belorn 2y agoHow can you claim that there wasn't a single victim when they evacuated 180,000 people (including hospital inpatients and elderly people)? If we use the same evacuation-to-death ratio as Fukushima, the Oroville Dam crisis caused 2416 deaths. In addition it should have costed the government hundreds of millions in evacuation costs, repairs of infrastructure, and lost revenue because of damages cause by the spillway.
- natmaka 2y agoOroville: no radiation, no panic. The evacuation started on February, 12 and people were back home 2 days later. Moreover such event in the USA in 2017 caused deaths and nobody took note? Come on.