>Except that the Fukushima disaster is about 100 times worse than the New Horizon spill.
Really? Everyone is terrified of the radiation bogeyman, but I'd bet there were more injuries and deaths as a result of New Horizon.
Really? Everyone is terrified of the radiation bogeyman, but I'd bet there were more injuries and deaths as a result of New Horizon.
Radioactive contamination of the food supply, the oceans, and tens of thousands of people exiled from their hometown for the rest of their lives.
17 injured and 11 dead rig workers is easily comprehended and instant. Doesn't really mean that disaster was worse, though. Just easier to contemplate.
Is that why you lead off with a fine example of it when you said that Fukushima was "about 100 times worse" than New Horizon?
>>Radioactive contamination of [...] the oceans
Sigh... bad scare mongering.
How many percent has the background radiation in the Pacific ocean increased by Fukushima?
(Hint: radioactive water is very, very diluted after much less than one century. :-) )
This cool xkcd link was posted just next to my GP comment: http://xkcd.com/radiation/
Look especially at the the varying background radiation levels -- and minimum level of radiation that has been proven to increase cancer risk. (And if you're trolling, go to the gym instead.)
Radiation dose in the exclusion zone is two red squares; the minimum for an increased cancer risk is eight red squares.
The more potent chemical toxins pouring into the gulf will likely be killing people for a while, though.
But there were no deaths caused by radiation exposure, and this year the WHO claimed that the health risks to evacuees attributable to radiation are below detectable levels.
A shallow look onto the Deepwater Horizon spill makes it pretty clear that it had far more serious environmental and health effects.