I don't think there's any evidence that it killed or will kill even hundreds.Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:10 pmMy view is that Chernobyl killed hundreds or thousands so perhaps it was 100 or perhaps it was 3000 and it can't be known for sure because we know x people died from cancer but we don't know what portion would have died from cancer anyway because of the nuclear accident.
The death toll is thirty-something from the accident IIRC, and I think it's limited to people who worked there. Due to improved screenings, for all we know *negative* people in the general public will ultimately die.
The only significant increase is in thyroid cancer, and it's the only one that would really be expected, and it's an extremely treatable form of cancer.
It does when we're comparing alternate sources of energy, though, and it's one reason people might oppose nuclear on the basis that they believe solar to be safer.
Also, people aren't perfectly rational and self sacrificing. If they believe Chernobyl killed so many civilians in the surrounding area even if they may support nuclear in the abstract they would be likely to oppose it in their cities.
Hundreds of thousands would give the impression that anybody living near a plant was actually at risk vs. the real risk which is both very small and limited to workers.
People need to know that approving a plant in their cities isn't playing Russian roulette.
With nuclear advocates it's more defensive than offensive. It's the other side that refuses to accept plans including nuclear. Nuclear proponents aren't trying to cut solar out of the deal as an option even if solar does have limited utility in practice.