arlaerion

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago

In two of three final reports there are bombs worn or placed by the attackers. In two of the reports the final assault was started by government personell (either directly, letting it look like the hostage takers started it, or by killing the guy on a dead man's switch). In one report it was classified as a suicide attack from the start.

The dead man's switch was confirmed by one of the surviving attackers. He also was the one speaking of a dispute between the attackers concerning the target building (school vs. police station).

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They wore explosive belts. That's why i supect they intended to blow themself up. Sure, I could be wrong. But then you got to find better sources.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Why are you getting cynical now?

I asked where it states that Putin bombed the school. Your own source contradicts your comment. So please explain.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Where in that article does it say it was bombed deliberately? And by Putin?

The first explosions were the bombs placed by the attackers themselves. The fighting afterwards was as expected.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

America does WHAT now?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There was a massive tsunami in the area killing almost 20k people, the power plant was not their first concern.

The guy died 4 years after the accident from lung cancer, not very common in nuclear power.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

I never agreed that its outmoded or old tech.

At Fukushima Daichii died one worker of radiation poisoning and one in a crane incident. The evacuation killed 51 more. Scientific consense is, that the loss of life and cumulative lifetime would have been lower if there was no evacuation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents

For the total number of airships, the loss of life (and airships) is quite high...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (8 children)

I explicitly wrote "civil nuclear power". I know there were big incidents, especially in early military nuclear sites. Windscale and Kyshtym are two of those.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah, read it. Also the article with the discussion on the death toll. 31 immediate deaths 60 attributable in the following two decades

The official WHO estimate with 4000 more cancer deaths until 2050 is based on the disputed LNT model. Even UNSCEAR itself says:

The Scientific Committee 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.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/let-s-separate-the-urban-myths-from-chernobyl-s-scientific-facts-20190705-p524f7.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

Dr. Thomas shares that contrary to popular belief there is a scientific consensus that the Chernobyl accident has resulted in the deaths of less than 55 people as a result of radiation.

The two airship accidents with the most casualties count together 120 dead (USS Akron and Dixmude).

 

J. Trittin: "It was clear to us that we couldn't just prevent nuclear power by protesting on the street. As a result, we in the governments in Lower Saxony and later in Hesse tried to make nuclear power plants unprofitable by increasing the safety requirements."

view more: next ›