Poll: is the BP oil spill in america equivilent to chernobyl?

Recommended Videos
Mar 9, 2009
893
0
0
is it? Me and my friend were talking about it, and I couldn't say yes or no. I seemed thought provoking, so I thought I'd put it up here to see what you guys and girls thought about it.
 

Brotherofwill

New member
Jan 25, 2009
2,566
0
0
Not even close. Nice thinking but Chernobyl was much much worse. It hit all of Europe and had devastating effects to humans everywhere. You couldn't buy normal food anymore.
 

CoverYourHead

High Priest of C'Thulhu
Dec 7, 2008
2,514
0
0
Oh god no.

Was it stupid? Yes. Was it preventable? Yes. Is it really, really bad? Yes.

Is it as long-lasting, destructive, and devastating as a nuclear meltdown? God no.
 

Sir Kemper

Elite Member
Jan 21, 2010
2,248
0
41
Perhaps, however, it seems that something like that would only be decided once the smoke (Or oil in this case) clears and people can take a look at the damage that was done.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Chernobyl wasn't as bad as this. At it's worst it only affected a 50 mile radius. The oil spill has potential devastating effects on most marine life.

Global companies need to be held accountable for their actions.
 

L3m0n_L1m3

New member
Jul 27, 2009
3,049
0
0
Dunno, are we going to be crawling through it in the next COD game?

(People also died in Chernobyl, don't forget. And this isn't a city.)
 

Canid117

New member
Oct 6, 2009
4,075
0
0
This one is having a far greater affect on wildlife while Chernobyl was more of a human centered catastrophe. They were both bad in the end so it doesn't really matter.
 

Corvuus

New member
May 18, 2010
88
0
0
as it is now, no.

If they fail to plug it soon AND there is a 3+ category hurricane... well let's just hope for the best.

C
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
of course not. not even close. The spill could kill all life within 20 miles of the gulf, but the environment would recover because it isnt radioactive. chernobyl is going to be killing the environment for hundreds of years, even if some life can addapt/ignore the radiation.
 

Baradiel

New member
Mar 4, 2009
1,077
0
0
No. I so many ways, no. Unless people are genuinely stupid enough to swim in and/or eat the oil, it wont physically harm them. A nuclear meltdown is slightly more destructive.
 

DND Judgement

New member
Sep 30, 2008
544
0
0
Dormin111 said:
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Chernobyl wasn't as bad as this. At it's worst it only affected a 50 mile radius. The oil spill has potential devastating effects on most marine life.

Global companies need to be held accountable for their actions.
Yeah, 50 miles:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/14898/chernobyl_fallout.jpg
exactly this... hmmm an oil spill compared to the single greatest nuclear accident ever... it's not something that can be compared....
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Dormin111 said:
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Chernobyl wasn't as bad as this. At it's worst it only affected a 50 mile radius. The oil spill has potential devastating effects on most marine life.

Global companies need to be held accountable for their actions.
Yeah, 50 miles:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/14898/chernobyl_fallout.jpg
Meh, that caesium level is natural in Cornwall anyway. Still didn't lead to the extinction of certain forms of life.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Dormin111 said:
Meh, that caesium level is natural in Cornwall anyway. Still didn't lead to the extinction of certain forms of life.
Uh, care to provide any source validation for that statement?[/quote]
First, the granite bed of Cornwall is naturally radioactive. Secondly, don't you think we should actually wait until the slicks cleared up before we start measuring? I'm just going on the fact that certain betting shops are already running lotteries on extinction events.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Politically, yes. This will do for the perception of offshore drilling what Chernobyl did for the perception of nuclear power.