Gen II 1970s era nuclear reactors are still among the safest forms of energy known to humanity. Anti-nuclear sentiment has only prolonged the reign of particulate and carbon emitting fossil and biofuel.
If Chernobyl itself was built today, without the post-accident modifications, and it ran 5 years and then exploded, it'd still be safer than a coal plant running normally.
Fossil/biofuel particulate emissions killing ~8 million people per year is no joke.
> Gen II 1970s era nuclear reactors are still among the safest forms of energy known to humanity. ... If Chernobyl itself was built today, without the post-accident modifications, and it ran 5 years and then exploded, it'd still be safer than a coal plant running normally.
This is only based on the official number of deaths (31 I think?). This is known to be false.
Better estimates are hard, but "the Ukrainian government pays benefits to more than 36,000 widows of men who have died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster".[1]
There were also at least 200,000 people who had to be relocated.
I agree 100% we should get rid of coal ASAP! No dispute there at all.
> This is only based on the official number of deaths (31 I think?). This is known to be false.
Actually, it's based on the UNSCEAR number of 4000 deaths including latent cancers. Don't use the Ukraine political numbers. Use the UN panel of scientist numbers.
If they used your 4000 number then Nuclear becomes twice as unsafe as solar.
(But the point here isn't the number of deaths in the past - because that was moderated by the strong anti-nuclear movements. The risk is higher usage leads to dramatic increases, because deaths are dominated by accidents not constant one-off deaths like from pollution which are more predicable)
Woah I did not realize they used that figure. Everyone agrees that there were between 0 and 1 deaths from radiation due to Fukushima (vs between 31 and 4000 radiation deaths at Chernobyl). There were deaths caused by the prolonged evacuation at Fukushima, which must be where this figure comes from.
Debatable, since many of the dose rates many evacuated from are below the level that causes any measurable harm. Temporary short term evac is understandable while the event unfolded but they should have given people dose rates and health info (e.g that less than 300 mSv/yr doesnt cause measurable harm) and let people decide for themselves.
If Chernobyl itself was built today, without the post-accident modifications, and it ran 5 years and then exploded, it'd still be safer than a coal plant running normally.
Fossil/biofuel particulate emissions killing ~8 million people per year is no joke.
https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution