First of all, we were talking about Fukushima, do you have any data about that ?
Anyway, about the first link:
Wow, 40000 cancers attribuable in Europe by 2065 to Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in history. That sounds bad, until you finish reading the abstract, where the authors evaluate that impact as "several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes ... unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected"
Try to compare with the number attributable to coal pollution now ?
Second link:
Greenpeace, overtly being against nuclear power, will bring the biggest estimates of impact right ? Anyway, what they find is 200k additional deaths in Russia and Ukraine between 1990 and 2004 (first para page 9). But around 34M deaths were recorded in those territories in that time. By Greenpeace's own admission, 0.59% of those are attributable to Chernobyl.
> First of all, we were talking about Fukushima, do you have any data about that ?
How can I? Who would provide that? Especially in Japan where politics and ignorance go hand in hand with avoidance to even talk about the whole thing or any disastrous event.
The piles of white bags full of earth next to the roads in the region are the only silent reminders that something really bad happened there.
> Anyway, about the first link: Wow, 40000 cancers attribuable in Europe by 2065 to Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in history. That sounds bad, until you finish reading the abstract, where the authors evaluate that impact as "several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes
I don't understand what you want to say by that. Do you mean it's okay to ignore the fallout of this disaster because people die of cancer either way? I mean seriously. There are radioactively contaminated wild animals running around in Bavaria's forests today and the accident happened almost 2000km away. Can you imagine how Europe would look like if one of those old and leaking reactors in France goes sideways?
There is nothing to compare to besides a nuclear war.
I can understand it's a nice thing with this radioactive accidents. There is usually a small amount of people who die in a spectacular and direct way while the rest dies a silent deaths over a long period of time. It's very handy if you want to push a technology which is too expensive and outdated and the only other argument out there is the death count of accidents. But this is not the case. Renewables are coming while even gas is a better solution then building even one nuclear reactor and most of the people, Governments and energy providers got the message already. The people never wanted a nuclear waste dump or reactor in the neighborhood in the first place. The only people left are those directly profiting from the immense subsidies (nuclear lobby) and those who fell for the recent artificial hype created by this lobby.
Nuclear is not a yes or no question, it's a how much question. Wind/solar/battery are going to be a huge part of moving us off fossil fuels, but it doesn't seem likely that they will be sufficient in all cases across the world. Nuclear seems like the best option available to fill in the gaps.
You make it look like nuclear is a all case solution across the world. It never was and it never will be so it's definitely not the best option available.
And yes it as an yes or no question. Especially if you consider building a new reactor today and investing into that. It doesn't look like many people consider to vote "yes" on that now with the alternatives growing. It's also not a bridge technology. A gas or even oil power plant would be better then a decade long involvement in a nuclear plant.
It's done and we just can hope now that what's still there won't fall apart before it gets demolished.
Anyway, about the first link: Wow, 40000 cancers attribuable in Europe by 2065 to Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in history. That sounds bad, until you finish reading the abstract, where the authors evaluate that impact as "several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes ... unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected"
Try to compare with the number attributable to coal pollution now ?
Second link: Greenpeace, overtly being against nuclear power, will bring the biggest estimates of impact right ? Anyway, what they find is 200k additional deaths in Russia and Ukraine between 1990 and 2004 (first para page 9). But around 34M deaths were recorded in those territories in that time. By Greenpeace's own admission, 0.59% of those are attributable to Chernobyl.
Again, try to compare to coal pollution.