Deaths per unit of energy for various sources

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by krschultz on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @02:22PM (#2333219)

Haven't people been visiting Pripyat and finding it to be habitable to a lot of species of life? It won't be a wasteland for 10,000 years. And Chernobyl was so pooring designed it is not analagous to everything else (as was the damn that killed 50,000 people).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by code_duck on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @02:40PM (#2333291)

There is life, to be sure, but it's not 100% healthy. The area is still too radioactive for humans to dwell in without shortening their lives and it's not going away any time soon.

We'll see in the next 50 years how it goes having nuclear power plants operating in Africa, Indonesia, the Middle East, etc. New reactors are better designed, but I still don't trust 80% of the governments or corporations in the world to responsibly operate anything nuclear.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by gamble on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @02:41PM (#2333299)

Are you joking? It's only 'habitable' in the sense that wildlife doesn't drop dead the moment it enters the exclusion zone. The animals are still receiving substantial amounts of radiation, and will continue to suffer for decades. The worst areas will be dangerous for centuries.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by iujyhgtfhj on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @03:23PM (#2333468)

Towns like Picher, Oklahoma, will still be toxic when the sun goes out.

Radioactive Ceasium and Strontium are a pain for a few decades - lead, mercury and cadmium are for ever.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by gamble on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @07:19PM (#2334399)

Non-sequitor. Just because something else is bad doesn't make this situation any better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by iujyhgtfhj on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @07:45PM (#2334468)

Oh my god they had a nuclear accident in Japan - we must shut down our nuclear reactors and instead pump out many millions of tons of dangerous radioisotopes and chemical poisons from new coal plants instead.

It's standard knee jerk procedure. We had a rail accident (the first in 10years) so the reaction was to close a bunch of inter city lines for months while they checked everything. Where did all those extra travellers go? onto the roads!

I hope the government doesn't hear about the problems with Toyota in america - they would then ban ABS and give everybody Tiger tanks to commute on.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by code_duck on Thursday March 17, 2011 @05:16PM (#2338143)

I think most people who are opposed to nuclear are hoping governments and industry will seriously pursue more sustainable and non-toxic sources of power, not coal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by code_duck on Thursday March 17, 2011 @05:13PM (#2338123)

Radioactive metals are still toxic as heavy metals even when they're not radioactive, though. Uranium, for instance, is just as bad as lead, or worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by sorbus on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @05:13PM (#2333952)

Also habitable in the sense that a lot of people still live there, in ways extremely similar to how they did before, with (apparently) few ill effects. See http://outsideonline.com/adventure/travel-pf-201103-chernoby...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by Duff on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @02:47PM (#2333324)

I'd like to offer you some prime property in Pripyat for your home. If you buy today, I'll even throw in a free well-drilling for your water supply.

[ Parent | on HN ]