[arcticbull]

And even still the remaining 3 reactors at the Chernobyl plant continued to operate safely, the last one closing in the year 2000. There’s a number of RBMK reactors in use today; they learned from the accident and patched up the issues. Not to say the new western reactors aren’t better, the very much are.

[guscost]

Even the older western reactors were much better. Look up “positive void coefficient” and “passive nuclear safety”.

[arcticbull]

I believe it. In this case I think it's fair to say the results speak for themselves.

[speaker1]

Sure, but Fukusima incident speaks itself for their safety.

[guscost]

After a magnitude 9 earthquake, one of those older reactors at Fukushima "just" melted down, and core material probably hasn't escaped secondary containment (unfortunately the water pumped through the core is a different story). In contrast, during a botched safety test the reactor core at Chernobyl exploded.

The impact to the surrounding environment was many orders of magnitude greater at Chernobyl, which is what happens when the reactor core explodes.

~50 people died at Chernobyl from acute radiation exposure in the first few weeks, and a couple employees actually got exploded. Lots of people died in the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, but none like that.

Please consider how you're hurting folks' ability to make good decisions when you spread misleading absolutist nonsense.

[Tepix]

I don't see thousands of people adversely affected by renewable energy for years (due to cancer, displacement and other health issues). Only counting deaths does not paint an accurate picture.

Besides, noone knows the total cost of nuclear energy because noone has solved the nuclear waste problem for 100,000+ years. There are likely to be billions of dollars needed to be spent on this long term issue.