Hacker News Reader

Comment by simon_000666 | Hacker News Reader

I call bs. This article claims that only 100 people ‘died’ from Chernobyl.

https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher...

It pretty much totally discounts the insanely large number of thyroid cancer cases in children. Then comes up with a very optimistic scenario of survival rates based on western medical interventions. So maybe they didn’t die per say but had significantly reduced quality of life and mutations.

This is a classic example of taking one vanity metric and making absolute conclusions from it rather than taking a range of data points to paint a more accurate story.

I find Wikipedia shows a range of numbers that are far more likely to give a realistic picture

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_dis...

View on HN

Note that they don't use 100 as the Chernobyl deaths estimate, they use 433. While I think that is very optimistic, there are very valid concerns with estimates made using the linear no-threshold model (which they discuss). And they used 2314 for Fukushima, which Wikipedia [1] agrees with and ascribes largely to the evacuation efforts.

I'm not claiming it as a 100% accurate source, as it was just what I found with a quick google - I agree using a range of data points for each energy source would be more rigorous. Do you have a better source that uses ranges for the different energy options?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

I think the gotcha here is they are saying : safer === less deaths. If you purely want the safety of power sources at a minimum you have to look at deaths, unnecessary human suffering and also potential for long term deaths & suffering. I think another thing that I find missing from the article is acknowledgement of the long term challenge of safely storing nuclear waste and the potential loss of life/suffering it could cause in the future. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

Seeing how debatable the issue of deaths caused by actual nuclear disasters is (varying from 400 to 60000 for Chernobyl), I can't imagine how little agreement two parties could have on the comparative amounts of human suffering caused by different energy sources. You would have to encompass land use changes, air quality, long term statistical health outcomes, respiratory illness, wildlife impacts, the list goes on ad infinitum..

I don't think that Mayak is relevant, as it is a secretive, poorly regulated nuclear weapons production facility. Similarly, the impacts of Therac-25 [1] patients or the Goiania Incident[2] don't get counted against nuclear energy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

Yes, chernobyl was fairly harmless, just like Fukushima. Wild life in both is thriving despite the fact that the mainstream media said the radiation was so bad nothing would be able to live there. Reality doesn’t back up any of those assertions at all. Villages near fukushima ignored the dire warnings and are just fine.

If this is surprising then you need to diversify your media news consumption.

Rooftop solar is more deadly than nuclear when you count people falling off of roofs during solar installation as “solar deaths”, otherwise it’s safer.

source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

This feels like a variation of the trolly problem where currently we're on one that's killing millions (fossil fuels), and everyone is afraid to pull the lever for one that kills a handful because it has the unreasonable requirement of needing to be perfect (nuclear).

Yes, and the media companies exploited it to prevent Nuclear energy thus precipitating the CO2 crisis being reported by the media today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com