The head of this year’s United Nations’ climate talks has called for governments and businesses to tackle global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in all regions and sectors if they want to stop the planet from passing a key temperature limi...
  • dismalnow@kbin.social
    184·
    1 year ago

    Your premise is specious

    There were two major catastrophes that killed thousands, first in Chernobyl and then in Fukushima.

    1. Chernobyl was a flawed test which deliberately ignored documented safety protocols on an RBMK-1000 high-power channel-type reactor. There are still 10 chernobyl-style reactors operating across russia, but the test method is the primary cause of that disaster.
    2. Precisely ONE of those 15,000 people killed in Fukushima and neighboring areas were due to destruction of the reactors at Fukushima. Here’s more information.
    • Scrabbone@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      58·
      1 year ago

      Firstly you are just picking up on my first point and secondly no one would have been harmed in either disaster if a wind farm had been set up.

        • dismalnow@kbin.social
          101·
          1 year ago

          And on which timeline? Nuclear power has come a LONG way since 3MI, let alone Chernobyl.

          One human has died from failures of a modern nuclear plant in the last 15 years.

          I don’t know the stats, but it’s quite likely that a non-zero number techs have died servicing and installing the wind facilities.

          In which case, they’re about even - or wind is worse. But in the grand scheme, it’s a non issue either way.

          • Scrabbone@discuss.tchncs.de
            34·
            1 year ago

            In your argument as to when a nuclear power plant kills people, as I see it, you consider the period too short. It may be that few or no one dies from the direct explosion, but the worst thing about the accidents is the immense amount of gamma radiation. Radiation deaths often do not occur immediately, but only after some time. It is therefore difficult to estimate how many deaths are due to radiation from nuclear catastrophes, but to estimate it with one death is definitely too low in my opinion. The number of deaths from nuclear power is certainly not comparable to solar or wind power due to its magnitude.

              • Scrabbone@discuss.tchncs.de
                41·
                1 year ago

                “Overall, based on statistical modelling of the radiation doses received by workers and local residents, a total of 4000 deaths will eventually be attributable to the Chernobyl accident”(Pflugbeil, S. (2006). Chernobyl – Looking back to go forwards: the September 2005 IAEA Conference. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 22(4), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13623690600945230) “Environmental fallout from the accident affected cropland, forests, rivers, fish and wildlife, and urban centres. In the three countries most affected, nearly 800 000 ha of agricultural land was removed from service, and timber production was halted on nearly 700 000 ha of forest.”(Pflugbeil, S. (2006). Chernobyl – Looking back to go forwards: the September 2005 IAEA Conference. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 22(4), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13623690600945230) “Studies have found that exposed populations had anxiety levels twice as high as normal, with a greater incidence of depression and stress symptoms.”(Pflugbeil, S. (2006). Chernobyl – Looking back to go forwards: the September 2005 IAEA Conference. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 22(4), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13623690600945230)

                I’m sorry but I didn’t have the time to find the values for Fukushima as well. There are a lot of different numbers, but I think these are also validated by the UN and WHO and are pretty informative