Hacker News Reader

Comment by andredz | Hacker News Reader

Why? Could you source your statement? Not that I'm doubting you, but I would like to learn more. :)

Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 was among the worst nuclear disasters in history; not only because its human toll was so high, but also because it was the "final straw" -- so to say -- in public opinion in Western countries that made people scared of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy remains the safest, cleanest way to produce energy but Chernobyl and Fukushima significantly reduced the funding going into this kind of research, because public opinion was very much against nuclear power. It is getting better recently, but if history shows anything in the next 20 to 30 years we will have another disaster that will change public opinion again.

>not only because its human toll was so high

1 radiation death and 18 injuries? (Only 2 of which involved possible radiation exposure.)

The "overly-conservative" decision to evacuate such a large area killed more people than if they hadn't evacuated at all.

Even Chernobyl only killed ~30 people, with maybe another 30 cases of cancer that workers had since then.

Sorry I phrased it wrong. I meant to say "not because". That "only" is extraneous.

I see. Thanks for the explanation. I had been thinking in terms of the technology rather than in its public perception (although sure… that perception influences funding for the technology).

Now I see that I would have been well served by looking up 'nuclear 2011' and 'nuclear 1986' since those disasters are very famous.

But thanks to all for telling me. :)

1986 is chernobyl, 2011 is fukushima. His comment isn't on safety, but perception of safety.

You are right, perception… Knowing that those years referred to those disasters, it feels a tad ridiculous to have asked for sources, but thanks :-)

1986: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Nuclear_deb...

2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... and in the aftermath for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#German...

One would hope that after such a disaster, and given the pros of the underlying technology, more funding and research would be focused on safety, rather than abandoning it.

I wonder to which degree has nuclear power's association with nuclear weapons affected its public perception.

It's a reference to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011

Thanks. (Is a simple thanks a valid HN comment?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com