Environment & Energy

...of ignorance in the coming weeks for sure.

Which has killed more people, the air pollution coal and gas burned to power the computers of people whining about Chornobyl or radiation exposures from the reactor?

Worldwide of course, since 1986, at a rate of about seven million deaths per year from fossil fuel waste, aka air pollution, not even counting the death toll from extreme weather and fossil fuel wars, somewhere between 250 and 300 million people died from exposure to air pollutants.

For the record, until the Chornobyl reactor blew up with the core burning for weeks, I was in the class of dumb shit antinukes, not even in the class of "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes. Then the worst reactor failure in history took place establishing for all times the consequences of the worst case. I realized that it's not even close to the worst energy disaster of all time, not close even to the Banquio renewable energy (dam) disaster in 1976, which killed approximately 200,000 people in about a week, nor the disaster about which antinukes clearly don't give a flying fuck, the accumulation of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere.

Which did more damage to Kiev, about 100 km from Chornobyl, in the last 40 years, or fossil fuel powered weapons of mass destruction financed by German antinukes or radiation from the reactor dumping almost its full inventory of volatile fission products?

Thanks for the emotive photographs. They say everything we need to know about antinuke fear mongering.

Nuclear power need not be without risk to be vastly superior to all other forms of energy. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it is.

Climate scientist Jim Hansen and his colleague, which for some reason antinukes like to quote around here, calculated, including Chornobyl, that nuclear power saved more than a million lives.

Have a nice day.