logoalt Hacker News

arghwhattoday at 6:05 PM2 repliesview on HN

Whether the disasters are worse depends on your metric. The deaths from Fukushima was, to my knowledge, only a few elderly individuals who had stress-induced heart failures. And that's a worst-case scenario with corruption, old designs, complete negligence and dual natural disasters hitting the plant in parallel.

It seems absolutely silly, but even wind power kills more people per TWh produced than nuclear due to workplace accidents in installation/maintenance.

Also not sure why lung cancer from oil/coal air pollution would be less visible than hypothetical radiation-induced cancers.

EDIT: Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p..., accidents include indirect deaths. Solar is the only energy source that beats nuclear in safety.


Replies

ch4s3today at 6:14 PM

> only a few elderly individual who had stress-induced heart failures

Caused by the evacuation

gosub100today at 6:32 PM

Both arguments can be correct: if X dose of radiation increases cancer risk, and it's shown that a nuclear plant released Y dose (by, oh, say, leaking tritium into the earth [1]), it's not out of the question to ask them to pay into a compensation fund. That has no bearing on whether wind turbines kill people.

1: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/03/22/what-we-know-about-...