Hacker News Reader

Comment by DangitBobby | Hacker News Reader

> Nuclear will forever be shunned, not because it's inherently unsafe, but rather because WE are unsafe.

This position is self contradictory. If it weren't inherently unsafe, our treatment of it, incompetent or otherwise, could not lead to global catastrophe. The problem is simultaneously that Nuclear is inherently unsafe and people cannot be trusted.

View on HN

Can nuclear energy lead to a global disaster? The Chernobyl disaster was local and it's pretty much worst case scenario. Global warming is a global disaster and if using nuclear energy is a way of avoiding it then we must use it.

Depends on what you call 'local'. Up until now, eating wild mushrooms and boars in the south of Germany is not considered healthy due to Caesium-137 emitted by the Chernobyl-accident decades ago [0].

Each shot wild boar needs to be tested before you are actually allowed to eat it.

[0] https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush...

That's the definition of local.

Same in Sweden, UK, parts of central Europe and large parts of eastern Europe. This includes everything from wild mushroom and berries to wild game. In the years right after even milk had increased radiation levels sometimes going beyond acceptable standards.

This is the fallout map, please tell me how that is "the definition of local" https://www.unscear.org/docs/JfigXI.pdf

> Same in Sweden, UK, parts of central Europe and large parts of eastern Europe

Exactly.

Locally.

I live in Italy, it affected us in 1986, then everything went back to normal.

And the laws in place are there only for precautions, nobody wants to lift them and be held responsible in case something happens, but the death toll of Chernobyl wasn't that scary as people like to imagine.

From where I live to Berlin is ~= 850kms (~525 miles)

From where I live to Warsaw is ~= 1,100kms (~715 miles)

From where I live to Pryp'yat' (where the Chernobyl plant is) is just 1,665 km (1,000 miles)

But, from where I live to Catania (Sicily, Southern Italy) is about 1,050kms (~630 miles)

So yeah, it was far from global.

It was global locally to continental Europe.

Global means that if the temperature goes up one degree celsius in the North Pole, the sea level rises in Australia.

BTW from the map you posted it's clear that Northern Italy, where I live, was hit harder than most of Sweden, Germany or Poland.

We eat mushrooms and vegetables without any particular concern.

Despite that, the global cancer rate ranking is (every 100,000)

    1 Australia 468
    7 France (metropolitan) 344.1
    8 Denmark 340.4
    9 Norway 337.8
    13 UK 319.2
    15 Germany 313.1
    23 Sweden 294.7
    24 Italy 290.6

Belarus, where the power plant is, ranks 32nd

    32 Belarus 260.7

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Most people's definition of "local" doesn't span 4 time zones.

Russia spans 11 timezones

USA spans 6 timezones (as many as the entire African continent)

China spans 5 timezones

Europe spans "only" 3 timezones (as many as Australia)

But if you say "it happened on French territory" it could be anywhere in the World

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Fr...

Isn't it more due to radiophobia than to the actual danger of radiation? Here's a really good lecture about the dangers of radiation and why it's not as bad as people think it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOvHxX5wMa8.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com