Yeah, except Love Canal wasn't radioactive waste, it was industrial waste.Jeezy said:
As others have said, we'll have to wait and see. It's entirely possible that this could become a worse disaster, but we'll have to wait and see.
Poll: is the BP oil spill in america equivilent to chernobyl?
- Thread starter mrpenguinismyhomeboy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, radioactive fallout is alot more than this oil spill think if a nuclear power plant had a melt down in the US then you would probably understand, Oil won't leave a place uninhabitable for decades.mrpenguinismyhomeboy said:
I guess its much better to buy tons and tons and tons of oil from nations that we have major problems with, have miners die frequently from collapses and injuries, have inefficient plants continually polluting.Jeezy said:
Sad they put the waste there instead of a proper place.. like a national repository for nuke waste..shame we dont have one of those. Oh wait we do! Its too bad the same people against nuke plants because of waste are also against a safe place to store the waste, and frequently attempt(and succeed) in having the funding cut. Good plan, I look forward to continuing to fund radicals in the middle east because we need fuel.
Well, not really. Both had/are having devastating environmental effects. Where Chernobyl caused mostly just damage to human life and cities, the oil spill will damage wildlife severly.
right now no
the enviomental and economic damg haset been seen yet but this will effect a great deal of people and places, with the nuke fall out it went into the air poisioning the air and creating so many problems i cant see and oil spill effecting as many people how ever the people that it will effect it will be very bad for them for awhile
the enviomental and economic damg haset been seen yet but this will effect a great deal of people and places, with the nuke fall out it went into the air poisioning the air and creating so many problems i cant see and oil spill effecting as many people how ever the people that it will effect it will be very bad for them for awhile
I see a resounding "NO" from a lot of the Escapist's... 
IMHO no way can you even compare this to Chernobyl. For the proven loss of life and after affects on the environment and subsequent generations, no this is not worse. But in saying that, we do not know the EXACT ramerfications of this spill. So we shall wait and see.....
But I wouldn't compare a Nuclear Disaster with a Oil spill...It doesn't affect me in any great way. Chernobyl had quite the emotional and devastating affect around the world... oil spills.. not so much.... :S
IMHO no way can you even compare this to Chernobyl. For the proven loss of life and after affects on the environment and subsequent generations, no this is not worse. But in saying that, we do not know the EXACT ramerfications of this spill. So we shall wait and see.....
But I wouldn't compare a Nuclear Disaster with a Oil spill...It doesn't affect me in any great way. Chernobyl had quite the emotional and devastating affect around the world... oil spills.. not so much.... :S
No... Of course, no.
Alright, the spill is really damaging and a huge problem, but it didn't cause 300 thousand people to resettle and didn't kill people. Alright, it did kill people. But not as many.
It isn't even the worst oil spil in history.
Alright, the spill is really damaging and a huge problem, but it didn't cause 300 thousand people to resettle and didn't kill people. Alright, it did kill people. But not as many.
It isn't even the worst oil spil in history.
I personally thought it would be obvious given I've named the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spillDormin111 said:
Yes it is. Let's take a closer look at that quote:
Not quite, the current death toll is UP TO 4050, if we can prove that the cancer is directly attributable to the radiation - which is tough. Dying seabirds however, a lot easier to prove.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_in_the_oil.html
Ok, let's take the costs I've attributed so far of $5billion. Chernobyl beats it on an estimated damage of roughly $200 billion. - http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-3/5-social-economic-impacts.htm - but Chernobyl has accrued this over the 24 years since.
Deepwater has claimed $5billion, 11 human lives and 700 animal lives. It also threatens 34,000 birds, and an endangered turtle species in the area. Samantha Joye has already said that this spillage could heavily damage the whole eco-system for decades (longer than Chernobyl); and that's in less than a fortnight.
That's not figuring in the loss of oil, Governmental lawsuits, the Texas City Refinery explosion in 2005 and the Prudhoe Bay oil spill in 2006.
And, like the Russian Government, BP aren't giving out real details about what their books say, and it still has decades of ongoing damage to do.
Chernobyl killed "fewer than 50" in the 24 years, directly. Deepwater may yet surpass Chernobyl and keep going, because unlike Chernobyl, it's still pumping out tons of toxic substance.
Dismiss, no. Suggest it may not be related. Yes.Dormin111 said:
Similar disease rates have been noticed in many other nuclear sites; even those that haven't gone boom. People fear nuclear power.
See, that's where we differ. I don't think 700 observed deaths in under a fortnight is anything to be complacent about.
And environmentalists have stated "decades" to clean this one up. What you class as "a couple of birds" (34,000) are part of the eco-system that allows fishing, trade and tourism, as well as keeping the planet alive.
We're also talking about the loss of oil, which according to the Independent [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html] would have already caused a peak oil run in 2020, and that's before this disaster.
How many years of oil have we lost to this spill? And what's the alternative to oil based power? Nuclear energy.
Now, even if we start tapping into the Canadian reserves, which we're going to have to do (or find new sources) to get us to 2030, that oil will be producing far more carbon dioxide to destroy the ozone layer.
So, yeah. "Decades" to fix...around 2030...then our oil reserves will be drained. That's 6 billion deaths possible in the worst case scenario.
But still, worst environmental disaster in history? Chernobyl can't compare to the 2004 Tsunami which killed 230,000 people. (Wiki'd again)
I know Chernobyl had major effects on the environment and I think that it's much worse than the oil spill, but not for the reason you said. I find "Well people died in Chernobyl" to be a bad reason.armageddon74400 said:
Local paper said today it's equivilant to the Exxon Valdez disaster that Mobil handled so sweetly that twenty years down the track they paid an insultingly small amount of compensation and the place is still unfishable, murdering the livelihoods of entire communities... But with 60,000-odd barrels of oil a day still spilling from the leaking well at $1100-$4300 per barrel in fines, I think BP haven't just manslaughtered their way out of 11 employees, they've screwed the pooch so royally that filing for bankruptcy is a quietly attractive option for escaping the kind of liability they'll be on the hook for.
Taken directly from Wikipedia:
"The countries of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. A 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed "fewer than 50" direct deaths (including nine children with thyroid cancer) and estimated that there may be up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths over time among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people."
Nope, the oil spill wasn't/isn't anywhere near as destructive.
"The countries of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. A 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed "fewer than 50" direct deaths (including nine children with thyroid cancer) and estimated that there may be up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths over time among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people."
Nope, the oil spill wasn't/isn't anywhere near as destructive.
Chernobyl, a nuclear event cannot be compared to an oil spill. Whilst the circumstances leading up to the incidents were much the same (systematic safety failings from both parties), Chernobyl was a far more preventable accident. The reactor shut-down test they were carrying out was not supervised by experienced personnel, and whilst there are numerous factors that contributed to the disaster they should have known that the inadequacies in the plants design made the test very dangerous. In essence the disaster was a result of stupidity, not mere misfortune.
As for the effects of them, Chernobyl killed thousands of people. It ruined farmer's livelihoods all over Europe, and isotopes with longer half-lives would ensure that many people in the surrounding area (and we are not talking just 50 miles here) would be at an increased risk of cancer for centuries. In contrast the BP oil spill has killed 11 people, hasn't contaminated many more with radiation poisoning and won't screw people over with medical disorders for years to come, and hasn't rendered entire cities uninhabitable. Whilst you may asses the affect on the economy of the immediate area as similar, nothing will ever come close to the Chernobyl disaster except for another nuclear disaster.
As for the effects of them, Chernobyl killed thousands of people. It ruined farmer's livelihoods all over Europe, and isotopes with longer half-lives would ensure that many people in the surrounding area (and we are not talking just 50 miles here) would be at an increased risk of cancer for centuries. In contrast the BP oil spill has killed 11 people, hasn't contaminated many more with radiation poisoning and won't screw people over with medical disorders for years to come, and hasn't rendered entire cities uninhabitable. Whilst you may asses the affect on the economy of the immediate area as similar, nothing will ever come close to the Chernobyl disaster except for another nuclear disaster.
But was there any environmental damage in Chernobyl? I`ve seen pictures- natural life is flourishing there because radiation has scared away all the people. So environmentally the oil spill is worse, I think.
Consider also that most of the people suffering from the radiation where workers and solders sent in with nothing more than gasmasks for protection. Still, in cost of lives, Chernobyl is worse.
Economically- we can`t really predict the total costs of cleanup, lasting damage to nature (and fishing industries), and how much $ of oil will be wasted. It might take years to assess total $ damages of the oil spill.
Consider also that most of the people suffering from the radiation where workers and solders sent in with nothing more than gasmasks for protection. Still, in cost of lives, Chernobyl is worse.
Economically- we can`t really predict the total costs of cleanup, lasting damage to nature (and fishing industries), and how much $ of oil will be wasted. It might take years to assess total $ damages of the oil spill.
Maybe for the fish it is, but none of us landlubbers have abandoned our homes en masse yet, I also can't see there being a "STALKER: Dark Waters of GoM."
