undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthe_af7y ago0 comments

While later contested, it's not only "Russia" which estimated 4000 deaths. Wikipedia states the United Nations took part in the joint group, and

> "[...] worked to establish international consensus on the effects of the accident via a series of reports that collated 20 years of research to make official previous UN, IAEA, and World Health Organization (WHO) estimates of a total of 4,000 deaths due to disaster-related illnesses."

In fact, the sentence you quoted states:

> "[...] there is considerable debate concerning the accurate number of deaths due to the disaster's long-term health effects, with estimates ranging from 4,000 (per the 2005 and 2006 conclusions of a joint consortium of the United Nations and the governments of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia), to no fewer than 93,000 (per the conflicting conclusions of various scientific, health, environmental, and survivors' organizations)."

So it's not just Russia.

0 pointsthe_af7y ago0 comments

While later contested, it's not only "Russia" which estimated 4000 deaths. Wikipedia states the United Nations took part in the joint group, and

In fact, the sentence you quoted states:

So it's not just Russia.

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

wiz21c7y ago· 4 in thread

anyway, it's much lower than death caused by burning coal.

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

the_afOP7y ago

Yes.

I think it's important the keep the hyperbole to a minimum, if we're truly interested in safe energy and in understanding this accident and its impact. Speaking of millions of deaths, as if it were proven fact, or getting our knowledge from sensationalized miniseries, is doing a disservice to both the Chernobyl disaster and the topic of nuclear energy.

HeWhoLurksLate7y ago

It's unfortunate that people still point to Chernobyl as why we should never go back to nuclear power ever again.

1 more reply

_nalply7y ago

We shouldn't contrast fossil to nuclear energy but both to renewables.

In other words, stop burning things to get energy, for fossil energy because of the carbon dioxide and for nuclear energy because long-term storage of wastes is an unsolved problem. I am surprised again and again that people propose nuclear energy as a solution to climate change. Don't they know we will come out of the frying pan into the fire with nuclear energy? Enough said.

_nalply7y ago

Edit: I should not have been so inflammatory, sorry for that. So let me retry:

We shouldn't contrast fossil to nuclear energy but both to renewables. We really should go out of both coal and nuclear.

In other words, stop burning non-renewable things to get energy, for fossil energy because of the carbon dioxide and for nuclear energy because of the long-term storage of waste.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse