Actually, the numbers are more like this: 50,000 to 100,000 liquidators (clean-up workers) died in the years up to 2006. Between 540,000 and 900,000 liquidators have become invalids

* In Bavaria alone, between 1000 and 3000 additional birth defects have been found since Chernobyl. It is feared that in Europe more than 10,000 severe abnormalities could have been radiation induced;

By referring to UNSCEAR one arrives at between 12,000 and 83,000 children born with congenital deformations in the region of Chernobyl, and around 30,000 to 207,000 genetically damaged children worldwide. Only 10% of the overall expected damage can be seen in the first generation.

In Belarus alone, over 10,000 people developed thyroid cancer since the catastrophe. According to a WHO prognosis, in the Belarussian region of Gomel alone, more than 50,000 children will develop thyroid cancer during their lives. If one adds together all age groups then about 100,000 cases of thyroid cancer have to be reckoned with, just in the Gomel region.

The list goes on.

Also… the entire area around the accident is a ghost town to this day. No one can live there. You can see the haunting, and disturbing images on with web with a simple search.

Anyone who claims that only a ‘few thousand’ people died from the accident is a liar.

I saw houses for sale in West Texas right next to these things. Quite unlivable in close proximity: noisy, disorienting. Obvious that the owners had to flee, and those houses will never sell. Standing right next to the turbines, my equilibrium was affected. Nausea-inducing. You DON’T want to stay around.

Another situation south of Las Vegas, NM where residents of a nearly pristine river valley/canyon are trying to keep out the turbines. Not right to put these things in such places. As intrusive as any other kind of industrial installations, sorry.

So what do we do? I dunno. Another factor is that whatever hooks into the main grid enables more real estate development somewhere, more energy for industry, “growth,” conventionally profligate lifestyles, so no one has to conserve. Why enable that which kills us? Two-edged sword.

In other words: yes, wind turbines are a huge improvement over other kinds of large-scale power production, but the real problem is that there are too many of us on the planet. I suspect Nature will make all these “issues” moot, eventually.

Yes, with nuclear power we must be humble. It must be said that Russia has continued to build nuclear powerplants since Chernobyl. Coal kills more people yearly. The newer nuclear powerplants emit less nuclear waste, use less Uranium which lasts longer. Eventually they’ll replace Uranium with Thorium & Thorium emits less waste (which is less radioactive & can’t be used as atomic weapons components). France gets most of it’s energy from nuclear power & they reprocess the nuclear waste, thus further reducing this. China & India are expanding nuclear power, because they want to cut down on greenhouse gases & fossil fuel usage.

They set buffer zones & have evacuation plans in worst case scenarios when it comes to nuclear powerplant destructions so that people don’t get killed. The nuclear industry wants to do good business with consumers.

OK, with nuclear power as with any industry, we must be prudent. However, the mantra that ‘nuclear is evil’ & the discussion is over becomes dull. As advances happen in nuclear power, let’s neutrally evaluate it, look @ the pros & cons & then take it from there. Nuclear power per se can be compatible with environmentalism. No, nuclear power isn’t perfect, but let’s neutrally look @ advances which happen in nuclear engineering, because there’s alot of wrong information which Greenpeace generates on this & it has been my observation that environmentalists who support nuclear power have more advanced knowledge. Credit must be given to environmentalists such as Patrick Moore & Stephen Tindale for their ability to rethink their original position against nuclear power & change them to support nuclear power.

And until governments around the world start offering financial incentives for people to install their own power production at home, wind farms sound like a great answer to fuel our energy addiction.

Otherwise, if we keep going as we are, there won’t be much of a view to see.

what is the point if this comment? Is there a high rate of deaths from turbines falling and taking out yachts in Cape Cod that I missed on the news? Please explain the analogy, I think I missed it!

As for Chernobyl, what people need to know is that it was entirely avoidable with some simple safety measures and responsibility that the Soviet Union chose not to take. It’s not because of a nuclear power plant that those people died, it’s because of the choices that were made that made it unsafe.