|
|
|
|
|
|
by fileeditview
28 days ago
|
|
|
First of all I never said these things you claim.
I literally said "ignoring these risks is BAD", not that they are absolutely too great or whatever. That must be evaluated per case. However there are numerous nuclear disasters in recent history that show, that we were not so good at estimating the risk. Yes other things can also be dangerous or deadly. But when a dam breaks people die. What doesn't happen is that the region is unusable for eternity afterwards. So nuclear disasters are a very special case. |
|
|
The only "recent" one I can think of is Fukushima Daiichi, a little more than fifteen years ago. That one definitely had a couple-dozen injuries at and around the time of the disaster and maybe one death four years later. Compare that to the tens of thousands killed and many thousands injured because of the tsunami and earthquake that damaged the fission plant.
What other ones do you consider to be recent? Do make sure to mention the year in which they happened as well as reasonable guesses at the death and injury numbers for each incident.
(I'll refrain from more than a brief mention of the century+-long ongoing disaster that is fossil-fuel-fired [0] power generation.)