Given the most favorable estimate for nuclear (0.2) and the most deadly for hydro (1.6) from that source, that's not even a single full magnitude.

Flip the favorable/deadly bias around, and hydro looks to be safer (1.0 vs. 1.2).

EDIT: Also, what's with that variance on nuclear? Another thing is that calculating the long term effects of nuclear fallout is quite difficult. How much evidence for and against could we have for rising cancer rates in Europe since 1986? (I don't actually know what the cancer rates are, but figuring out causation is probably very difficult, and may or may not have something to do with Chernobyl)

You sort of answered your own question re variance. I was shocked, after growing up hearing how horribly deadly Chernobyl was, to discover there were only 30 directly related deaths. Maybe 60 for eventual cancer deaths for people that were actually on-site. But some studies claim 60,000+ cancer related deaths, and growing up, I always assumed there was a morgue somewhere that had thousands of victims piling up in the weeks after meltdown. I felt duped to find that wasn't the case.

And cancer rates in general have been rising for 80+ years, so yes, causation is difficult.

> there were only 30 directly related deaths

A better statement would have been that "the soviet union reported 31 immediate deaths at the time".

That 30 number was highly disputed unto itself, and doesn't include fatal cancers directly caused by radiation exposure.

There's an entire wikipedia page about it if you're interested in learning more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...

I'm familiar with all the various claims. Although I haven't seen anything seriously disputing the 31 on-site number, beyond +/-5. I said

>>Maybe 60 for eventual cancer deaths for people that were actually on-site.

It's the 10,000+ numbers that I take real issue with. And am skeptical of even the 4,000 "agreed-upon" estimate. I don't doubt radiation was released. I don't doubt radiation exposure can increase risk of cancer.

But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site. I get that radiation plays a part in increased cancer risk.

Claiming that there were 1,010,000 cancer deaths, but there should have only been 1,000,000, and not being able to tell which 10,000 were "caused by Chernobyl" is problematic for me. It diminishes the pain of the other 1,000,000. Is this logical? Idk

Some studies in Fukushima claim over 1,000 more people have died by continued forced evacuation, than if they been had been allowed to return to the exclusion zone after a few weeks.

It just gets hard to take these numbers seriously when you only have statistical speculation to rely on. Moreso to treat them with the same equivalence as deaths on-site.

> But when you need statistical methods to calculate deaths, that's just not as meaningful as counting body bags on-site.

Agreed, but it's necessary if the government lies to you -- which of course was a frequent problem with the soviets.

More recently, the Puerto Rico death toll for Hurricane Maria was just 64, and remained that way for a year. The only way it was eventually changed was proving (through statistical analysis) that the death toll was in fact higher.

Yea, I have a major problem with how they did that one also. That's not proof or causation, it's at most correlation. But there's no way to normalize for variable independence. If a 99 year old was on life support when the power went out and died a month earlier than they otherwise would have, that got counted. But Maria didn't kill that person. I get that this is somewhat debatable semantics, but it shouldn't be.

And that's my point. There are really two sets of numbers that are being called the same thing when they clearly are not.

The death toll stayed for a year at 64, making it look like there was no real human suffering. The US President used that as political cover for denying the funds for disaster relief.

You can say "See, Chernobyl wasn't so bad. Nuclear power accidents aren't as bad as they say." Meanwhile the mismanagement of Chernobyl is still regarded as one of the greatest atrocities that came from the Soviets.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/29/18285367/c...

In the immediate aftermath, Trump repeatedly complained about how expensive it was to help the island, and said the hurricane wasn’t a “real catastrophe.”

“If you look at the — every death is a horror, but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina and you look at the tremendous hundreds and hundreds of people that died and what happened here with a storm that was just totally overbearing. No one has ever seen anything like that. What is your death count?” he said during his visit after the hurricane.

I don't think Chernobyl was nearly as bad as what's been told. That's my point. It can still be "one of the worst" without claiming thousands died.

And I still think 64 is closer to the real death toll for Maria. It's certainly no where near 3000. People who have been through a hurricane know what it's like. You don't need to inflate your numbers to get sympathy. A body count based on "expected mortality rates" is by-definition, not a body count.

"Which meant that in the first few weeks and deaths after the storm, doctors failed to record many deaths that were indirectly related to the storm..."

They even admit that they're "indirect" deaths. Maria didn't kill those people. If people that died weeks later are being counted, that's absolutely wrong.

You can be against Trump's policies, but no one can claim with a straight face that Puerto Rico wasn't at fault for the state of their infrastructure. Or empty bank accounts.

The reporters needed a shock-value to try and get people in the US to care. It didn't work.

(Also, vox isn't exactly a neutral source, even by mainstream standards.)

I do not want to dismiss those deaths, but the very terrible consequence of Chernobyl were ecological. In particular the fact that a significant area is going to be uninhabitable for a long time.

Humanity could survive to even thousands of accident each killing thousands of people, but a thousand Chernobyl would be quite problematic.

1.3x-8x multiplier per that source

8x is about 90% of an order of magnitude (calculated via log-base-10 of 8).

Just meant to clarify, not dispute. Mostly because 1.3x is only 11%.

Everyone agree that statistics are on the side of nuclear power. The problem is that in the case of a very wrong accident the consequences can be very dire, as in transforming half a continent in nuclear wasteland.

The question is how much we want to trust the risk.

Half a continent? The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone[1] is 30km in diameter, Fukashima's is 20km I believe[2]. Obviously a nightmare if you happen to live in the neighborhood, but I don't think there are any nuclear power plants big enough to turn even a small country into a "nuclear wasteland".

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone 2: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/oct/11...

The sum total of exclusion zones due to nuclear power is tiny when compared to the exclusion zone that will be created by rising sea levels due to global warming.

No, that is not a valid counterargument to the statistical argument of Nuclear's safety. One catastrophic accident is not necessarily worse than many small accidents. In fact that's the whole point behind the argument.

I agree that my comment was ill formed. My point was that when comparing the kind of worst case scenario of nuclear against other energies you get a very different result.

In part I am also worried about nuclear power plants in case of war.

I understand that there are many advantages on many sides, but in my opinion it is not worth it considering what could happen if thing go very wrong.

>Hydro is on par with nuclear in capacity, but has caused an order of magnitude more deaths per kWh.

Is this factoring in all future deaths from existing nuclear incidents?

If nuclear causes 1 death a year for 500 years and hydro causes 100 immediate deaths, which one is more lethal? Also consider the morality of pushing the costs of a failure generations down the road.

Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as you think. One, its contained within a very small area (which increases its lethality but substantially decreases your risk of exposure). Two, some waste products decay alpha particles which are basically harmless unless consumed. Three, some waste products have short half-lives which increases their risk in the short term but substantially decreases their risk over a 500 year period. Four, most deaths from nuclear waste would be slow and probabilistic (e.g. 18% increase cancer risk for an individual with high exposure) whereas deaths from some other power source would be immediate and devastating (e.g. flood, destruction of habitat).

I don't mind hydro. I don't particularly like the habitat destruction but they provide tons of clean power and tons of fresh water. But those dams have to be maintained for those 500 years. A collapse of a dam is pretty catastrophic.

> One, its contained within a very small area (which increases its lethality but substantially decreases your risk of exposure).

There are two cases to consider. Accident and normal waste. Accidents aren't nearly as contained. Normal waste is contained for now, but what about long term? We are looking at time length longer than any government has been stable.

>Two, some waste products decay alpha particles which are basically harmless unless consumed.

...some...

Also, what vectors could these particles enter into food when you consider their lifespan?

>Three, some waste products have short half-lives which increases their risk in the short term but substantially decreases their risk over a 500 year period.

But to what extent are these the ones being pushed for?

>Four, most deaths from nuclear waste would be slow and probabilistic (e.g. 18% increase cancer risk for an individual with high exposure) whereas deaths from some other power source would be immediate and devastating (e.g. flood, destruction of habitat).

Are we really suggesting that the death isn't comparable because it is a long term probabilistic? Imagine if some company dumping sludge into drinking water was making the same argument. Would we find it acceptable?

> We are looking at time length longer than any government has been stable.

98% of radioactive waste is "safe" after 40 or so years. After 40 years the radiation is 1/1000th of its initial waste state. The 1,000 - 10,000 year period generally cited is for the radioactive products to decay back to their original ore's radioactive intensity.

> Also, what vectors could these particles enter into food when you consider their lifespan?

Russian FSB.

> Are we really suggesting that the death isn't comparable because it is a long term probabilistic?

Yes. Would you rather die now or have a 10% increased chance of developing a cancer that may or may not be treatable 10 years from now?

>Actually, we already are to some extent with trans individuals. While most groups that support LGB also include the T, there are a few who do not and take offensive.

That isn't the comparison being made.

> Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as you think.

That'll be great news for all the governments who haven't come up with a plain "solution" that'll definitely work for all the time it needs to work, because only God could really make sure of that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...

> It is widely accepted that spent nuclear fuel and high-level reprocessing and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment.

Compared to tens of thousands, 500 years sounds great. Though you do have a point in that dams are not great, either, because 500 years are a long time, too.

But a risk being "probabilistic" also applies to dam accidents, since not every single last person in the wider area of it dies. I know it sucks either way, but having cared for cancer patients, I would rather drown in 5 minutes than over the course of months like one might with lung cancer.

The UN estimates (https://www.un.org/press/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm) 4,000 deaths total for Chernobyl.

The EPA estimates zero deaths for Three Mile Island.

The worst dam failure in history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam) killed somewhere between 150,000 and 230,000 people. Hydro has a big head start.

The main purpose of those dams which were built right after 1949 in Huai river basin was flood control, not power generation. The dam you link, was built in 1958, but the power generators were installed almost ten years later at 1968, the electricity was just not the the priority for those dams. And it was not just one dam failure, but multiple dam failures, 62 dams in total failed in this extreme weather event, Banqiao was just the largest one, and only one with power generators at the time. After dams lost, there were constant floods in downstream areas, and almost all dams were rebuilt in 80s and 90s.

The 150k-230k death toll most likely is estimate for whole flood event, not just for this dam. We can say that if the constructions of the dams or coordinates between dams were better death toll can be much lower. But if dams were not existed at all, for that level of heavy rainfall, some people at some specific locations may be alive, but for the whole basin, I don't think there will be a huge difference.

Chernobyl is so different from a modern reactor, that it's not really useful to judge to current risks with existing reactors, let alone planned new Gen III+ reactors which are orders of magnitudes safer.

In fairness, the same is probably true for dams, as well - we've gotten a lot better at engineering them.

Recent California flooding makes me question this.

Yea, people talk about not being able to fully predict nuclear disasters, then turn around and claim sun, rain, and wind are totally predictive enough to rely on. I get that the risks vary, but man, a lot of people really don't understand statistics and probability.

And in particular the recent near-failure of the dam in Oroville. That could've significantly impacted hundreds of thousands of people.

The UN estimates for Chernobyl are based on the known bad LNT model for radiation exposure. Anything approaching 4,000 is unlikely if you apply more realistic models.

To clarify for others - LNT refers to "Linear No Threshold", the most conservative [0] model for assessing deaths from radiation exposure. Under LNT, if some amount of radiation leads to a 1% chance of death, 1/10th that amount leads to a 0.1% chance of death. This is most likely overly conservative, as cancer rates in the states do not seem to vary with radiation exposure as would be predicted by LNT.

So 4,000 is a good upper bound, if anything.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

Thank you for the further explanation. However, I think that it could also be referred to as a "wildly exaggerated upper bound." Although I understand what you're saying, it's a terrible upper bound to use for risk assessments, or anything that you need to make sound engineering decisions based on. The true number of deaths from Chernobyl, outside of the actual plant fatalities, is likely closer to 0 than to 4,000.

Are those UN estimates time bound to any period of time and if not, what assumptions do they make of the future?

Also, per the Wikipedia link they included following famine in the numbers killed. Is that accurate?

The Chernobyl death toll estimates have been widely criticized as wrong because of the influence of the Soviet government trying to hide the problem. Some estimate the death toll to be at least an order of magnitude higher, and the area is still uninhabitable today many decades later.

The UN's estimate from 2005 is unlikely to have had much Soviet influence in its preparation.

How much data/information that the UN used was able to be influenced by the Soviet Union and its records? genuinely curious, I have no idea where the UN estimates come from nor a particular thought/agenda on the matter