6 ms·

That's bad of course. But after a short time people can live there again. If something like Chernobyl or Fukushima happens the land is lost for decades and has

That's bad of course. But after a short time people can live there again. If something like Chernobyl or Fukushima happens the land is lost for decades and has a very huge impact (fallout, radioactive waste, groundwater contamination, etc.). You may argue that these are just two big incidents but with all the old plants with bad condition (e.g. Beznau, Fessenheim, etc.) in mind I'd say we'll see more bigger incidents in the next years. In most discussions the time is ignored. Nuclear power plants already produced waste for many generations which is irresponsible.

sjwright 8y ago
You're seriously comparing thousands of dead people favourably to thousands of displaced people?
- codingminds 8y ago
  Both incidents kill many people. Hydro plant failures in short term - Nuclear plant failures in long term. Both is bad. But additionally nuclear plant failures also make the affected environment for a long time unusable. And I'd say harm more people because of the long term effects.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
    - codingminds 8y ago
      From 1: The total number of deaths, including future deaths, is highly controversial, and estimates range from "up to" 4,000 (by a team of over 100 scientists[9][3]) to the Union of Concerned Scientists estimate is approximately 27,000 based on the LNT model[10], to 93,000—200,000 (by Greenpeace[11]). Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, but without NYAS explicit approval,[12][Notes 1] is a 2007 Russian publication that concludes that there were 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released.[13] From 3: It has been reported that 90,000 - 230,000 people were killed as a result of the dam breaking. I don't see your point
      - sjwright 8y ago
        I made my point, I can’t help you if you refuse to see it.
    - makomk 8y ago
      The problem with trotting out the Banqiao Dam as proof of the dangers of hydroelectric is that it was a dual-purpose dam built to prevent downstream flooding as well as providing power, and it failed due to mismanagement of the flood control aspect. So even if nuclear power had existed at the time, and even if the idea of building a nuclear power plant with the same quality of engineering used in the dam wasn't a utterly terrifying idea that would make Chernobyl look safe, not using hydroelectic power wouldn't have solved the problem. The dam would still have been built and those hundred thousand people would still have died due to dam failure, all that would changed is that nuclear proponents couldn't point to their deaths as proof nuclear is the safer option.

sjwright 8y ago

You're seriously comparing thousands of dead people favourably to thousands of displaced people?

codingminds 8y ago
Both incidents kill many people. Hydro plant failures in short term - Nuclear plant failures in long term. Both is bad. But additionally nuclear plant failures also make the affected environment for a long time unusable. And I'd say harm more people because of the long term effects.
- sjwright 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
  - codingminds 8y ago
    From 1: The total number of deaths, including future deaths, is highly controversial, and estimates range from "up to" 4,000 (by a team of over 100 scientists[9][3]) to the Union of Concerned Scientists estimate is approximately 27,000 based on the LNT model[10], to 93,000—200,000 (by Greenpeace[11]). Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, but without NYAS explicit approval,[12][Notes 1] is a 2007 Russian publication that concludes that there were 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released.[13] From 3: It has been reported that 90,000 - 230,000 people were killed as a result of the dam breaking. I don't see your point
    - sjwright 8y ago
      I made my point, I can’t help you if you refuse to see it.
  - makomk 8y ago
    The problem with trotting out the Banqiao Dam as proof of the dangers of hydroelectric is that it was a dual-purpose dam built to prevent downstream flooding as well as providing power, and it failed due to mismanagement of the flood control aspect. So even if nuclear power had existed at the time, and even if the idea of building a nuclear power plant with the same quality of engineering used in the dam wasn't a utterly terrifying idea that would make Chernobyl look safe, not using hydroelectic power wouldn't have solved the problem. The dam would still have been built and those hundred thousand people would still have died due to dam failure, all that would changed is that nuclear proponents couldn't point to their deaths as proof nuclear is the safer option.