• BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    Well you’re the one claiming that this data has been suppressed.

    We do have the data showing spikes in cancer after Chernobyl and data showing on-job deaths for pretty much every type of power plant. And that data shows that nuclear is the second safest energy per MWh generated, by far. With, apparently, solar being the first and wind at the third position. It’s not suppressed, it’s there and it’s pretty conclusive.

    https://blog.ucs.org/lisbeth-gronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated/

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      From Wikipedia

      Since the 1990s—when the declassification of selected liquidator records prompted some direct participants to speak publicly—some with direct involvement in the liquidators’ cleanup efforts have asserted that several thousand liquidators died as a result of the cleanup.[23] Other organizations claim that total liquidator deaths as a result of the cleanup operation may number at least 6,000.

      • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s a case specific to Chernobyl and Soviet Russia in general. We know they falsified a lot of data in many aspects, but that’s not “systemically suppressed” and definitely not something to generalise to every single nuclear power plant currently running in the world.