it’s the most expensive to build/operate and much safer than typically perceived. Accidents are spectacular and rare.

  • thonofpy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see a difference regarding the effects if something does go wrong. A plane crash is no Fukushima.

    • lntlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      sure, a plane crash typically kills everyone aboard. The explosion and resulting leak at Fukushima killed no one.

      they’re obviously not exactly the same, but similar in certain respects

      • thonofpy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Didn’t know that, but you are right, nobody actually died directly from radiation related causes at Fukushima. However, deaths from circumstances relating to the evacuation of the area are estimated to be in the thousands (source: wikipedia). I find that that somewhat illustrates the extent to which human lives have been impacted. While a plane crash is a personal tragedy for a number of people and relatives, a nuclear accident feels more like a collective catastrophe.

        • lntlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not clear to me that these deaths from evacuation are from the explosion at the plant and resulting leak or the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan (mag 9.0) and resulting tsunami. it’s really hard to pin a definitive reason onto these fatalities.

          • thonofpy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fair point. Nuclear plants are fairly safe and historically have a low death toll, I agree. Leaves the radioactive waste to deal with.