There isn't a valid reason to fear Nuclear Energy.

  • 76 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for luisen123
#1 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -

It has come to my attention that recently, fear towards Nuclear Energy is once more on the rise, this should come to no surprise to anyone, of course, yet, I do believe that all this fear is due to media hype and mostly, unfounded.

So I've made it my duty to correct this, for I believe Nuclear Energy is widely under-used and is one (if not the) best choice for alternative energy we currently have.

So for now, I'm just going to drop some facts.

My main point, one of the biggest arguments it's how the radiation from Nuclear energy will kill you, however, the death rate for Nuclear energy is of 0.04 per TW/h while it is of 161 for coal and 36 for oil.

If one were to compare the rate of the failure of the plant itself, there's been only 4 major Nuclear Plants accidents, Three Mile Island (Do note than no one died at this accident), Chernobyl, Kyshtym and now, Fukushima, this compared to 50 Dam failures including the devastating Banquio Dam Flood. (I would also use data for Fossil Fuel Plants, but my search wasn't very productive, but of course, we all know of oil spills, right?).

While Nuclear Energy is currently more expensive, one should also consider the indirect expenses, for example, hospitalizations due to CO2 poisoning.

It's more probable that you die by crashing against another person than radiation (This also includes Nuclear Power Plants workers).

Also, there's also Thorium which is magic made a energy fuel, about 100 grams, or 8 tablespoons, of thorium could provide the energy used by an American during his or her lifetime. It's also meltdown proof and can't be weaponized among other magical things.

Avatar image for heysharpshooter
#2 Posted by heysharpshooter (6348 posts) -

I agree on a lot of your points...

However, you seem to miss 1 major point: while you point out there have been 50 dam failures as oppsed to 4 meltdowns, the damage done by 200 dam failures would not compares to the damage done in Chernobil(not sure how to spell it)...

The villiages around Chernobil are literally gone, cancers rates have quadrupled, mutations in infantsare common, the soil is unuseable, the air is toxic... a flood decimated town can be rebuilt... one caught in a slow decaying cloud of raditation is gone forever...

Avatar image for luisen123
#3 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -

Ah yes, enviromental damage, of course Chernobyl was greatly affected but one can't deny that the building of Dam or the sheer amount of CO2 spewed into the enviroment has done great harm too.

"There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated."

And, only 30km or "The Zone" has been completely lost, comparing to the Banqiao Dam, I quote again: "The resulting flood waters caused a large wave, which was 10kilometers (6.2mi) wide and 3–7 meters (9.8–23 ft) high in Suiping , to rush downwards into the plains below at nearly 50kilometers per hour (31mph), almost wipe out an area 55kilometers (34mi) long and 15kilometers (9.3mi) wide, and create temporary lakes as large as 12,000square kilometers (4,600sqmi). Seven county seats, namely Suiping, Xiping, Ru'nan, Pingyu, Xincai, Luohe, Linquan, were inundated, as were thousands of square kilometers of countryside and countless communities. Evacuation orders had not been fully delivered because of weather conditions and poor communications."

Avatar image for heysharpshooter
#4 Posted by heysharpshooter (6348 posts) -

Ah yes, enviromental damage, of course Chernobyl was greatly affected but one can't deny that the building of Dam or the sheer amount of CO2 spewed into the enviroment has done great harm too.

Also, "There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated."

luisen123

Whats funny is, I have seen that report before... one done by Russian scientists, in order to remove culpability in paying for medical costs for Ukrainian civilians suing for their medical expenses...

That entire report(there is a fascintating story done by The NewsHour on PBS and Frontline) is bogus... they interviewed dozens of scientiets and doctors(including the doctors who treat patients near Chernobyl) who point to thousands of incidents of mutations, cancers and illness...

In fact, using basic radiation dedecting technology, you can litterally dedect the radiation coming off peoples skin... its everywhere...

Avatar image for luisen123
#5 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -

I seriously doubt that radiation is coming off people's skin, like I said, the radiation has been contained inside a 30km radius, people were evacuated and those bigger numbers could as easily be exaggerated as they could be simplified, of course, I don't have a source here, so take me with a grain of salt.

And my main argument still stands however, if one feared Nuclear Energy due to Chernobyl, that would be silly, Nuclear Plants have evolved since then and there's also the fact that Chernobyl was violating several safety procedures it was also poorly designed. There's a whole report on everything that went wrong in Chernobyl and how it could've been fixed here, though it's a very heavy document (148 pages).

Avatar image for branketra
#6 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -
The media is probably reminding people of the power that nuclear energy is capable of. Atomic bombs, our cities, and even our sun are all powered by nuclear energy. If you don't fear nuclear energy, at the very least it is wise to respect its power.
Avatar image for luisen123
#7 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -
Well, that's a huge mistake if you ask me, instead of trying to induce fear, why not try to harvest interest?
Avatar image for branketra
#8 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -
Well, that's a huge mistake if you ask me, instead of trying to induce fear, why not try to harvest interest? luisen123
You got the wrong impression. I only meant that it's wise to remain cautious around something capable of severely damaging the planet.
Avatar image for RubiksCubeReven
#9 Posted by RubiksCubeReven (246 posts) -

High cost, to start up but easier to power i suppose

High environmental impact with major accidents though i agree ONE major distaster that destroyed one town that killed less than 5 k people is NOTHING compared to pollution and the disasters

Is there a widely acceptable solution for longterm storage of radioactive wastes and decommissioning worn out plants? we're just burying it in contained barrels

It's also subject to terrorist attacks, not built to withstand a crashing plane, plus stealing some plutonium and making a dirty bomb wouldn't be TOO hard

It spreads the knowledge of building nuclear power despite the formula being readily available on the INTERWEBS

though it was FUNNY that more deaths come from roof top solar panels than nuclear

Avatar image for luisen123
#10 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -
You got the wrong impression. I only meant that it's wise to remain cautious around something capable of severely damaging the planet.BranKetra
As opposed to Oil and Coal which aren't damaging the planet, right?
Avatar image for RubiksCubeReven
#11 Posted by RubiksCubeReven (246 posts) -

Too bad POLITICS are going to be the downfall of nuclear energy

When i heard the anti nuclear rallies in Japan, Germany, South Korea, i died a little inside.

Nuclear energy is in such a mess that we will continue to use coal and oil, while trying to be green with solar energy, LOL

Avatar image for branketra
#12 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -
[QUOTE="BranKetra"]You got the wrong impression. I only meant that it's wise to remain cautious around something capable of severely damaging the planet.luisen123
As opposed to Oil and Coal which aren't damaging the planet, right?

Actually, they do damage, too. I think you missed my point, again.
Avatar image for RubiksCubeReven
#13 Posted by RubiksCubeReven (246 posts) -

Can we actually destroy the planet with nukes? Can you really carpet nuke ONE decent size state in the USA or only major cities which are protected by anti missile missiles?

Avatar image for luisen123
#14 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -
Actually, they do damage, too. I think you missed my point, again.BranKetra
Not at all, see, you see, aside from Chernobyl, meltdowns don't leave barren lifeless landscapes, people still live in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (Three Mile Islands) and I'm sure people will live in Fukushima, the enviromental damage is comparable to that one done by a chest X-Ray.
Avatar image for -TheSecondSign-
#15 Posted by -TheSecondSign- (9298 posts) -

Hey just because there's no reason to fear something doesn't mean people won't stop being afraid of it.

Just look at gay people. There are people are legitimately terrified that if we don't actively stop them from being gay that America will become an immoral wasteland.

Avatar image for CoolSkAGuy
#16 Posted by CoolSkAGuy (9665 posts) -
Have you ever played Stalker? If so were gonna need a lot of vodka :o
Avatar image for SlimWallet
#17 Posted by SlimWallet (27 posts) -

good post. It's not a reason to fear nuclear energy. I mean i don't even think we have built any nuclear plants since the 70's or 80's. just think of the technology these days we could manage it no problem.

Avatar image for AceofTrades
#18 Posted by AceofTrades (624 posts) -

lol, right.

Avatar image for luisen123
#19 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -

lol, right.

AceofTrades
Avatar image for Espada12
#20 Posted by Espada12 (23248 posts) -

Until governments spend the extra $$$ to ensure that the facilities can withstand even the most absurd of natural or man made occurances there is always a risk.

Avatar image for -TheSecondSign-
#21 Posted by -TheSecondSign- (9298 posts) -

Have you ever played Stalker? If so were gonna need a lot of vodka :oCoolSkAGuy

God that would be ****ing awesome.

Avatar image for luisen123
#22 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -

Until governments spend the extra $$$ to ensure that the facilities can withstand even the most absurd of natural or man made occurances there is always a risk.

Espada12
They already do, the procedure to even "ok" a nuclear reactor is a very tough one, heck, in the USA, one hasn't been built since the 90s.
Avatar image for Espada12
#23 Posted by Espada12 (23248 posts) -

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Until governments spend the extra $$$ to ensure that the facilities can withstand even the most absurd of natural or man made occurances there is always a risk.

luisen123

They already do, the procedure to even "ok" a nuclear reactor is a very tough one, heck, in the USA, one hasn't been built since the 90s.

They don't, or the japanese reactor wouldn't have been in the state it was. It was not built to handle disasters as the ones that hit japan. As I said, the planets must be built with absurdities in mind, that's the only way to guarantee there will be no risk.

Avatar image for luisen123
#24 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -

They don't, or the japanese reactor wouldn't have been in the state it was. It was not built to handle disasters as the ones that hit japan. As I said, the planets must be built with absurdities in mind, that's the only way to guarantee there will be no risk.

Espada12

Maybe you missed the big walls built to prevent tsunami? Granted, they were only 6m tall, but they're there, also, the plant had previously survived earthquakes without major damage, by precedent, one would think no major damage would've been done.

Avatar image for branketra
#25 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Actually, they do damage, too. I think you missed my point, again.luisen123
Not at all, see, you see, aside from Chernobyl, meltdowns don't leave barren lifeless landscapes, people still live in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (Three Mile Islands) and I'm sure people will live in Fukushima, the enviromental damage is comparable to that one done by a chest X-Ray.

With or without any protection? Anyway, like I said, you missed my point. Otherwise you wouldn't have gone off on whatever it is you were saying about oil and coal. Granted, they are destructive elements in this era, but compared to nuclear energy, they're just a poof of smoke.

Picture the sun. The nuclear reaction over there is ongoing. We hold that same power. Granted, it might not be at the same level, but it is the same in essence. If anything, those who fear it are only doing so out of instinct. Maybe they just don't understand it enough. Then again, maybe they do and yet they still view this energy in such a way. Whatever the reason, nuclear power remains the dominating force on this planet and because of that, it needs to be respected. Unless, you have a foolproof form of defense or perhaps even an offense against it in any of its various forms. Whether it be an explosion, harmful light or radiation.

I don't mean to sound like a fear monger. I just want to realize that nuclear energy is dangerous and as a wise man once said, "With great power, comes great responsibility."

Avatar image for Espada12
#26 Posted by Espada12 (23248 posts) -

[QUOTE="Espada12"]They don't, or the japanese reactor wouldn't have been in the state it was. It was not built to handle disasters as the ones that hit japan. As I said, the planets must be built with absurdities in mind, that's the only way to guarantee there will be no risk.

luisen123

Maybe you missed the big walls built to prevent tsunami? Granted, they were only 6m tall, but they're there, also, the plant had previously survived earthquakes without major damage, by precedent, one would think no major damage would've been done.

I know they built it to handle disasters, and I saw them, what I was saying was that they did not build it to handle the magnitude of the disasters that hit japan. Which is why I said that the buildings should be built to withstand absurd disasters or there will always be a risk.

Avatar image for luisen123
#27 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -

Anyway, like I said, you missed my point. Otherwise you wouldn't have gone off on whatever it is you were saying about oil and coal. Granted, they are destructive elements in this era, but compared to nuclear energy, they're just a poof of smoke. Picture the sun. The nuclear reaction over there is ongoing. We hold that same power. Not at the same level, but in essence. Those who fear it are only doing so out of instinct if anything. Maybe they just don't understand it enough. Then again, maybe they do and yet they still view this energy in such a way. Whatever the reason, nuclear power remains the dominating force on this planet and because of that, it needs to be respected. Unless, you have a foolproof form of defense against it in any of its various forms. Whether it be an explosion, harmful light or radiation. I don't mean to song like a fear monger. I just want to let you know that nuclear energy is dangerous, and as a wise man once said, "With great power, comes great responsibility." BranKetra

Thorium.

"Thorium, as well as uranium and plutonium, can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. A thorium fuel cycle offers several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle including much greater abundance on Earth, superior physical and nuclear properties of the fuel, enhanced proliferation resistance, and reduced nuclear waste production."

"[...]Rubbia states that a tonne of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal."

"[...]thorium expert Kirk Sorensen calls it the "next giant leap" in energy technology, noting that the "potential energy in thorium is staggering," explaining how just 8 tablespoons of thorium could provide the energy used by an American during his or her lifetime."

"thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy - and a way to burn up old radioactive waste."

"With a thorium nuclear reactor, Dean stresses a number of added benefits: there is no possibility of a meltdown, it generates power inexpensively, it does not produce weapons-grade by-products, and will burn up existing high-level waste as well as nuclear weapon stockpiles."

  • Weapons-grade fissionable material (U-233) is harder to retrieve safely and clandestinely from a thorium reactor;
  • Thorium produces 10 to 10,000 times less long-lived radioactive waste;
  • Thorium comes out of the ground as a 100% pure, usable isotope, which does not require enrichment, whereas natural uranium contains only 0.7% fissionable U-235;
  • Thorium can not sustain a nuclear chain reaction without priming, so fission stops by default

"[...]They add that because of thorium's abundance, it will not be exhausted in 1,000 years"

Wikipedia

Avatar image for luisen123
#28 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -
I know they built it to handle disasters, and I saw them, what I was saying was that they did not build it to handle the magnitude of the disasters that hit japan. Which is why I said that the buildings should be built to withstand absurd disasters or there will always be a risk.Espada12
Russia began doing stress test to their Nuclear Plants to see if they could withstand earthquakes of that magnitude, trust me, that will be done.
Avatar image for branketra
#29 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

I read about Thorium the other day. I wonder why they haven't decided to replace the uranium and plutonium fuel if Thorium really is as wikipedia claims. It sounds like an all around improvement.

Avatar image for luisen123
#30 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -
I read about Thorium the other day. I wonder why they haven't decided to replace the uranium and plutonium plants if Thorium really is as wikipedia claims. It sounds like an all around improvement.BranKetra
They need their own special reactors for it to be completely efficient, India is the one pumping the most money into Thorium, and they plan on opening the first Thorium Nuclear Plant this year, I believe.
Avatar image for branketra
#31 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

As I said, the planets must be built with absurdities in mind, that's the only way to guarantee there will be no risk.

Espada12

s

s

Absurdities, you say?

Avatar image for branketra
#32 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -
[QUOTE="BranKetra"]I read about Thorium the other day. I wonder why they haven't decided to replace the uranium and plutonium plants if Thorium really is as wikipedia claims. It sounds like an all around improvement.luisen123
They need their own special reactors for it to be completely efficient, India is the one pumping the most money into Thorium, and they plan on opening the first Thorium Nuclear Plant this year, I believe.

That makes sense. Even though I don't know much about nuclear reactors, I do know that each reactor is specifically customized for the fuel, in order to work efficiently and prevent any potential dangers. With India taking the plate, I'll keep my eyes peeled for this.
Avatar image for Espada12
#33 Posted by Espada12 (23248 posts) -

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

As I said, the planets must be built with absurdities in mind, that's the only way to guarantee there will be no risk.

BranKetra

Absurdities, you say?

Yeah sorry it's 3:21am here and I don't care enough to correct any mistakes I make. My point got across so I'm fine.

Avatar image for RubiksCubeReven
#34 Posted by RubiksCubeReven (246 posts) -

no one addressed the storage of spent nuclear fuel

Avatar image for branketra
#35 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

3:21...

Espada12

boomAlright I'm done derailing the thread.

Avatar image for luisen123
#36 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -

no one addressed the storage of spent nuclear fuel

RubiksCubeReven
Ah, it's as you said, it's all being stored in barrels. There are proposals to build a deep and controled underground storage, but no country has began a construction.
Avatar image for sixty7velle
#37 Posted by sixty7velle (1036 posts) -
Have you ever played Stalker? If so were gonna need a lot of vodka :oCoolSkAGuy
Sadly, Stalker is where I get all of my nuclear knowledge from.
Avatar image for luisen123
#38 Posted by luisen123 (6537 posts) -
[QUOTE="sixty7velle"] Sadly, Stalker is where I get all of my nuclear knowledge from.

That is very sad indeed, do a quick wikipedia run, you'll be amazed.
Avatar image for sixty7velle
#39 Posted by sixty7velle (1036 posts) -
[QUOTE="sixty7velle"] Sadly, Stalker is where I get all of my nuclear knowledge from.luisen123
That is very sad indeed, do a quick wikipedia run, you'll be amazed.

Have you played Stalker?
Avatar image for DoomZaW
#40 Posted by DoomZaW (6475 posts) -

Have you ever played Stalker? If so were gonna need a lot of vodka :oCoolSkAGuy

Somehow i suddenly look forward a nuclear apocalypse :P

Avatar image for sixty7velle
#41 Posted by sixty7velle (1036 posts) -
No matter what scientists or doctors might say, vodka lowers your radiation levels. (it also lowers your accuracy)
Avatar image for Palantas
#42 Posted by Palantas (15327 posts) -

Based on my impressions of these things, it seems that nuclear energy is currently the way to go. It doesn't destroy the planet, just very small parts of it.

Avatar image for angrules23
#43 Posted by angrules23 (854 posts) -
Yes there is, the waste. You stick enough in the ground eventually it'll have no where to go and start getting to the surface and into water tables. Nuclear energy is a very bad idea unless you can conceive a way to get the waste into the sun for minimal cost.
Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#44 Posted by foxhound_fox (96908 posts) -

Of course not... but people will still continue to fear what they don't understand. I personally think nuclear fission is a dead end, and money should be spent on developing fusion technology... because its future is far more important than any other energy source.

Yes there is, the waste. You stick enough in the ground eventually it'll have no where to go and start getting to the surface and into water tables. Nuclear energy is a very bad idea unless you can conceive a way to get the waste into the sun for minimal cost. angrules23

I love this argument, because it just exemplifies the greatness of nuclear energy.

Out of a single reactor, it produces what, a barrel of waste every week or so? And what do coal fire, oil fire and other power plants do? Either they don't produce nearly as much electricity (wind, solar) or produce in ordinate amounts of carbon dioxide (environmentalists greatest fear, which the nuclear plant produces NONE) and hydro-electric dams destroy arable land, forcibly relocate communities and destroy ecosystems.

Nuclear energy, aside from the radiation (the waste itself is also an energy source, since it produces heat as well) is the safest, best and most environmentally friendly energy source in the world. And we are exposed to radiation on a daily basis (from the Sun, from the Earth and hell, even from someone sleeping next to us every night). Nuclear technology has come a long way since the 1950's, and the few disasters definitely don't even compare to the benefits nuclear energy has given us. Especially considering how many other disasters can be related to coal and oil and natural gas and other fossil fuel sources.

Why is waste so bad? We mine uranium and other highly radioactive material from the same crust we walk on every day... what should be a concern is if chemists start producing large quantities of the superactinides.

Avatar image for Cumtifier
#46 Posted by Cumtifier (25 posts) -
There isn't a valid reason to fear AIDS, because you can use a condom. Right ?
Avatar image for tenaka2
#47 Posted by tenaka2 (17053 posts) -

It has come to my attention that recently, fear towards Nuclear Energy is once more on the rise, this should come to no surprise to anyone, of course, yet, I do believe that all this fear is due to media hype and mostly, unfounded.

So I've made it my duty to correct this, for I believe Nuclear Energy is widely under-used and is one (if not the) best choice for alternative energy we currently have.

So for now, I'm just going to drop some facts.

My main point, one of the biggest arguments it's how the radiation from Nuclear energy will kill you, however, the death rate for Nuclear energy is of 0.04 per TW/h while it is of 161 for coal and 36 for oil.

If one were to compare the rate of the failure of the plant itself, there's been only 4 major Nuclear Plants accidents, Three Mile Island (Do note than no one died at this accident), Chernobyl, Kyshtym and now, Fukushima, this compared to 50 Dam failures including the devastating Banquio Dam Flood. (I would also use data for Fossil Fuel Plants, but my search wasn't very productive, but of course, we all know of oil spills, right?).

While Nuclear Energy is currently more expensive, one should also consider the indirect expenses, for example, hospitalizations due to CO2 poisoning.

It's more probable that you die by crashing against another person than radiation (This also includes Nuclear Power Plants workers).

Also, there's also Thorium which is magic made a energy fuel, about 100 grams, or 8 tablespoons, of thorium could provide the energy used by an American during his or her lifetime. It's also meltdown proof and can't be weaponized among other magical things.

luisen123

You have clearer never seen STALKER, the creatures spawned by the Chernobyl disaster are still around today!

But on a serious note, its all relative, its fine for most people but would you live next to one? I also bet few Japanese would agree with you.

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#48 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

nuclear power is created when the nulicules are harvested. it is a well know fact that this is poisonous and has made people sick and die, i dont see how anyone can or would take the risk of these guys escaping captivity.

Avatar image for YellowOneKinobi
#49 Posted by YellowOneKinobi (4128 posts) -

I agree on a lot of your points...

However, you seem to miss 1 major point: while you point out there have been 50 dam failures as oppsed to 4 meltdowns, the damage done by 200 dam failures would not compares to the damage done in Chernobil(not sure how to spell it)...

The villiages around Chernobil are literally gone, cancers rates have quadrupled, mutations in infantsare common, the soil is unuseable, the air is toxic... a flood decimated town can be rebuilt... one caught in a slow decaying cloud of raditation is gone forever...

heysharpshooter

You should research a little bit more about Chernobyl. The air isn't toxic. I was watching a documentary about Chernobyl the other day. The plant and animal life are back with virtually no birth defects, etc. I'm not saying that the site of the actual power plant is safe, but the myth that the entire city/town surrounding it is still glowing in the dark (metaphorically speaking) is a little over the top.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#50 Posted by foxhound_fox (96908 posts) -

You should research a little bit more about Chernobyl. The air isn't toxic. I was watching a documentary about Chernobyl the other day. The plant and animal life are back with virtually no birth defects, etc. I'm not saying that the site of the actual power plant is safe, but the myth that the entire city/town surrounding it is still glowing in the dark (metaphorically speaking) is a little over the top.

YellowOneKinobi


Chernobyl is still a contaminated area, and will be until all the caesium that was deposited in the countryside has decayed. Which is 30 years after creation, so 2016. But then again, I think the core of Reactor 4 is still molten and will continue to be so for a very long time.

What made Chernobyl so bad was the poor construction of the reactor, the inability of the staff to recognize a meltdown, their lack of training with the procedure that was undertaken (it was given to night staff, and not those in charge of the reactor itself) and the way in which the Soviets responded. And considering the possible devastation from the reactor itself, I think less than 100 people have died as a direct cause of the meltdown. Sure, millions have been effected, but very few have actually died. Can't say the same for other kinds of human-related disasters.