• ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Yeah it’s also people using those incidents for fear mongering. Especially when coal and oil have killed way more people than every nuclear incident combined, including nuclear weapons.

    • kandoh@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      The psychological impact of a meltdown versus slow poisoning is important. Similar to how fire bombings were more deadly and destructive than the nuclear bombs were, but the nukes have a bigger impact on us mentally

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ve heard people say shit like “after Chernobyl, two fishermen were instantly vaporized and only boots left on the bank!” Like, no, that never happened since it wasn’t an atomic bomb.

      • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        The closest to that were the people on the bridge who were looking at the radiation that died a couple of days after.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Chernobyl showed that an accident could make an entire region unlivable indefinitely, Three Mile Island showed that an accident could happen in the US too

      Nuclear accidents became real. People could no longer trust that all the safeguards and safety culture could prevent it. And the impact of how serious an accident could get outweighs the rarity.

      Or a more objective and dispassionate way to look at it, is the seriousness of any potential accidents caused enough process safeguard to make nuclear power too expensive to be worthwhile