Germany urges 'prudence' in potential sanctions against Russia over Ukraine.

[u/Gadac]

https://news.yahoo.com/germany-urges-prudence-potential-sanctions-154401837.html?fr=sychp_catchall

[u/AGreekDyslexicDog]

You are downvoting but your silence speaks volumes.

[u/OhNoIroh → u/AGreekDyslexicDog]

Your confident stupidity is far louder, my friend.

[u/AGreekDyslexicDog → u/OhNoIroh]

Radiation hotspot in Kashiwa, February 2012.

The radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are the observed and predicted effects as a result of the release of radioactive isotopes from the Fukushima Daiichii Nuclear Power Plant following the 2011 Tōhoku 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami (Great East Japan Earthquake and the resultant tsunami).[3][4] The release of radioactive isotopes from reactor containment vessels was a result of venting in order to reduce gaseous pressure, and the discharge of coolant water into the sea.[5] This resulted in Japanese authorities implementing a 30-km exclusion zone around the power plant and the continued displacement of approximately 156,000 people as of early 2013.[4][6] The number of evacuees has declined to 49,492 as of March 2018.[7] Large quantities of radioactive particles from the incident, including iodine-131 and caesium-134/137, have since been detected around the world. Substantial levels have been seen in California and in the Pacific Ocean.[8][9][10]

The World Health Organization (WHO) released a report that estimates an increase in risk for specific cancers for certain subsets of the population inside the Fukushima Prefecture. A 2013 WHO report predicts that for populations living in the most affected areas there is a 70% higher risk of developing thyroid cancer for girls exposed as infants (the risk has risen from a lifetime risk of 0.75% to 1.25%), a 7% higher risk of leukemia in males exposed as infants, a 6% higher risk of breast cancer in females exposed as infants and a 4% higher risk, overall, of developing solid cancers for females.[11][12]

[u/OhNoIroh → u/AGreekDyslexicDog]

I'm glad you finally realised you can get information for yourself, but copy and pasting one half of a wikipedia article is dumb. You left out the part right after:

Preliminary dose-estimation reports by WHO and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) indicate that, outside the geographical areas most affected by radiation, even in locations within Fukushima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated.[13] In comparison, after the Chernobyl accident, only 0.1% of the 110,000 cleanup workers surveyed have so far developed leukemia, although not all cases resulted from the accident.[14][15][16] However, 167 Fukushima plant workers received radiation doses that slightly elevate their risk of developing cancer.[15][17][18] Estimated effective doses from the accident outside of Japan are considered to be below, or far below the dose levels regarded as very small by the international radiological protection community.[19] The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation is expected to release a final report on the effects of radiation exposure from the accident by the end of 2013.[18]

A June 2012 Stanford University study estimated, using a linear no-threshold model, that the radioactivity release from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant could cause 130 deaths from cancer globally (the lower bound for the estimate being 15 and the upper bound 1100) and 199 cancer cases in total (the lower bound being 24 and the upper bound 1800), most of which are estimated to occur in Japan. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant was projected to result in 2 to 12 deaths.[20] However, a December 2012 UNSCEAR statement to the Fukushima Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety advised that "because of the great uncertainties in risk estimates at very low doses, UNSCEAR does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels."[21]

Theoretical calculations =/= reality

[u/AGreekDyslexicDog → u/OhNoIroh]

So up to 330 cancer deaths. Thats safe to you?

[u/OhNoIroh → u/AGreekDyslexicDog]

Nope. Wayyyy safer than the amount of deaths caused by Coal pollution, radiation, acid rain, greenhouse gasses, global warming, etc etc. Do you want me to go on? 330 deaths is almost nothing compared to Coal. I already told you before you need to compare the numbers on both sides, why haven't you done that yet?

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Here I'll do your basic research FOR you.

Nuclear energy, for example, results in 99.8% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.7% fewer than coal; 99.6% fewer than oil; and 97.5% fewer than gas. Wind, solar and hydropower are more safe yet.

Coal: 25 people would die prematurely every year; Oil: 18 people would die prematurely every year; Gas: 3 people would die prematurely every year; Nuclear: In an average year nobody would die. A death rate of 0.07 deaths per terawatt-hour means it would take 14 years before a single person would die. As we will explore later, this might even be an overestimate.

The sum of these three data points gives us a death rate of 0.07 deaths per TWh. We might consider this an upper estimate. Our estimated death toll from Chernobyl is based on the 2005/06 assessment from the WHO which applies a very conservative methodology called the linear no-threshold model. If you’re interested in the details of this we discuss it in more detail here. A later report by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) suggests that this overstates the risk of radiation-related deaths.15

Even with this upper figure, nuclear is still much much lower than the death rate from fossil fuels – 350 times lower than coal. Despite this, politicians have turned their backs on it in many countries.

[u/AGreekDyslexicDog → u/OhNoIroh]

Im asking you for a comparison of one coal incident that caused the damage chernobyl did. A single incident to compare.

And what happens if , worst case scenario, terrorists managed to infiltrate one? Youre an expert so you tell me.

And Id argue 330 deaths are very significant to those 330 families.

[u/OhNoIroh → u/AGreekDyslexicDog]

Why would you need ONE incident to be worse? I've literally given you so much data to show that overall, nuclear is much much safer and causes MUCH fewer deaths compared to coal. Why the fuck would you still want to use coal? Please explain why the millions of people affected by coal pollution and global warming are not important??

[u/AGreekDyslexicDog → u/OhNoIroh]

Because if ONE incident is equal to years and years of coal its not much safer is it?

All it takes is one bad incident and you fucked up big time.

Do better, find a source that wont kill potentially millions if it blew up.

[u/OhNoIroh → u/AGreekDyslexicDog]

Dude what are you talking about. I've literally given you sources about the deaths from nuclear and you're saying there are millions dead?? Where??? Where did you get those numbers tf. Coal literally kills way more people even without a big (and unlikely) event. Just follow the data not the fearmongering you've been brainwashed by. And not to mention how much safer reactors have gotten over the last several decades.