• waitmarks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Immediate silent death is grossly over exaggerating. Even in Chernobyl which was absolute worst case scenario that can’t happen with modern designs, the “immediate death” area was directly around the plant.

    The concern is cancer in 30 years, not immediate death. Not that trying to downplay cancer, but it really only makes it uninhabitable for humans who live much longer than 30 years. A lot of wildlife basically doesn’t notice since their lives are shorter. It doesn’t mean we should be cavalier about irradiating the environment, but there is no need to go around calling it immediate death.

    • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Keep in mind significant effort was put into ensure Chernobyl didn’t experience further thermal detonation. It could get a lot worse. Especially with bigger reactors.

      All being said there are safer reactor types but do you really trust the same people who put doge in charge with getting that implemented correctly so it doesn’t explode? Especially with the increased interest in small scale reactors that would be much closer to people.