Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LarryGumball t1_irusod5 wrote

I see your statement on some news sites, however is there anything with the math/science to back it up as that looks like the numbers during the explosions, and Most of radioactive materials are short-lived ones, which there was indeed a chance of massive danger for Europe, mostly the ones closer to the explosion depending on the winds due to a second explosion, the rest of Europe would've encountered a increase similar to a X-ray/Cat-scan. Overall even including that disaster, Nuclear counts to 1/5 of coal and natural gas for radiation per UNSCEAR .

I would also like to add the pollution generated by coal and factories in china, has been recorded to reach California and is thought to contribute 65% more smog ~35% of it being from coal burning. Which again contains radioactive isotopes. Worldwide I would love to see total radiation increases due to various activity's and naturally.

8

Optix334 t1_irv23il wrote

You won't ever get a source because it's not true. The only place emitting that much radiation was basically in the middle of the reactor where humans would never go anyway.

And on top of it, nothing nuclear even exploded. It was a steam explosion. The explosion caused a meltdown which, as you mentioned, was very radioactive for a very short time. The meltdown caused the reactor to stop reacting, as we would expect.

And the final cherry on top is that less than 100 deaths can be positively linked to this over 4 decades. The rest is bad science, inconclusive data, and fear mongering. Google the solar deaths in the same timeframe.

But we still get the ignorance all over the place, and we'll end up putting it off right until the last moment when renewables can't power industry well enough to keep up with maintenance and replacements, or we run out of neodymium for wind turbines, or we poison the land with cobalt from a solar panel accident of some kind.

3