jaykrown@lemmy.world to Data is Beautiful@lemmy.worldEnglish · 5 days agoGermany phased out nuclear instead of coal and now still relies on fossil fuels for electricitylemmy.worldimagemessage-square119linkfedilinkarrow-up1217arrow-down133
arrow-up1184arrow-down1imageGermany phased out nuclear instead of coal and now still relies on fossil fuels for electricitylemmy.worldjaykrown@lemmy.world to Data is Beautiful@lemmy.worldEnglish · 5 days agomessage-square119linkfedilink
minus-squareSonnenblume@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·5 days agoOne confirmed from radiation (lung cancer, 4 years later), and 2,202 from evacuation.
minus-squarejdr@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·4 days agoThat’s not what that article says
minus-squarejdr@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 days agoThe text of the article is what I looked at, where they’re a lot less definite.
minus-squareSonnenblume@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·4 days agoThe 2202 deaths claim is from this article. If you don’t trust that news site, directly in the article to the left of the info box: As of 27 February 2017, the Fukushima prefecture government counted 2,129 “disaster-related deaths” in the prefecture. That claim is supported by one government report, two scientific papers and one news site.
minus-squarejdr@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·4 days agoAnd then you have to see what a “disaster-related death” is. Certainly you didn’t have thousands of people dying at the site, which is what someone might understand if they had taken your numbers at face value.
minus-squareulterno@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·4 days agojdr is right. The article says “1” and you said “One”.
minus-squareSonnenblume@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 days agoDamn you got me there.
One confirmed from radiation (lung cancer, 4 years later), and 2,202 from evacuation.
That’s not what that article says
The text of the article is what I looked at, where they’re a lot less definite.
The 2202 deaths claim is from this article.
If you don’t trust that news site, directly in the article to the left of the info box:
That claim is supported by one government report, two scientific papers and one news site.
And then you have to see what a “disaster-related death” is.
Certainly you didn’t have thousands of people dying at the site, which is what someone might understand if they had taken your numbers at face value.
jdr is right.
The article says “1” and you said “One”.
Damn you got me there.