> These were all very real events with very real repercussions. They did not conclusively prove there is no "safe" nuclear power, but they did illustrate the consequences of getting it wrong.
The worse consequences of these events came from the evacuation of the zones, not from the radiations.
Yes there were death due to direct radiations, about 31 for Chernobyl and none for Fukushima. But that's very small compared to all the death due to coal energy pollution, and even hydro which is catastrophic when a dam breaks (which happens way more than nuclear plant accidents).
So this is how we can talk about safety of nuclear plant: by looking at stats of the last 70 years and compare it to alternatives. Because unless we want to go back to candles and windmills we can't just say "nuclear seems dangerous so it's safer not to use it". We have to consider what we'll be using to produce electricity instead.
> The worse consequences of these events came from the evacuation of the zones, not from the radiations.
As if, had we only not evacuated people and left everyone around, nobody would have died and everything would have been better...
> Yes there were death due to direct radiations, about 31 for Chernobyl and none for Fukushima. But that's very small compared to all the death due to coal energy pollution, and even hydro which is catastrophic when a dam breaks (which happens way more than nuclear plant accidents).
This is not a good argument, or at least a bad statistic. You need to look at deaths per <X>, not deaths as a result of. Sure, deaths are fewer with Nuclear, but also, deaths are fewer per coconut. Deaths per terawatt is a bad argument because again, there are so many fewer nuclear plants and the tera-watts are also lower.
A better analysis would be acres of land made uninhabitable by energy source. It doesn't matter you have all the electricity if nobody can live anywhere, whether it is coal causing massive wildfires in Canada or failed Nuclear plants evacuating 40 mile regions (and you need to be careful even then - the wildfires are caused by heat which is caused in part by tera-watts, although largely by fossil fuels and chemicals in the atmosphere, the dams floods are caused by lack of upkeep, a problem shared by nuclear reactors...)
The worse consequences of these events came from the evacuation of the zones, not from the radiations.
Yes there were death due to direct radiations, about 31 for Chernobyl and none for Fukushima. But that's very small compared to all the death due to coal energy pollution, and even hydro which is catastrophic when a dam breaks (which happens way more than nuclear plant accidents).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
So this is how we can talk about safety of nuclear plant: by looking at stats of the last 70 years and compare it to alternatives. Because unless we want to go back to candles and windmills we can't just say "nuclear seems dangerous so it's safer not to use it". We have to consider what we'll be using to produce electricity instead.