Hacker News Reader

Especially when we think about the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which is currently occupied by Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla...

View on HN

And yet it was Kakhovka dam causing disaster. So should we stop building dams by this logic?

It's not only the dam (which was helpful for keeping the power plant cooled down) that was destroyed by the russians. There is also evidence that they planted explosive devices in the power plant. The whole power plant is taken as a hostage.

The huge difference is the lasting time. Few days or a week the water has gone and you can start with repairs/rebuilding. But after a nuclear disaster all is polluted for foreseeable future and not usable even if all infrastructure and buildings are intact and look safe.

Which is not true, if you look into for example Three Miles Island reactor meltdown, where from outside point of view, there is no difference and only 600 meters exclusion zone from the reactor.

Furthermore nuclear disasters killed dozens of people, while water related disasters killed thousands of people. Another reason to ban dams.

Nuclear disasters worldwide killed thousands - tens of thousands of people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com