Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "If Coal Power is Deadliest, Why Is Nuclear Most Feared?" video.

  1. If a dam bursts and kills 100,000 people, it's disastrous and tragic, but at least it can be rebuilt and people can live within 50 miles of it immediately. And it doesn't send a toxic cloud round the entire planet. I think our caution towards nuclear power is well deserved. This is NOT a straight numerical issue.
    3
  2. Calvin George James is a very angry person. On EVERY thread I've ever seen him talk, he just abuses his way through the whole thing. He's clearly desperately insecure. 
    3
  3. Bart Bols Oookay. Know it all internet guy - zero : United Nations geneticists - 1 billion. You asked for actual proof -  I gave you a link to research by the United goddamned Nations, gained as a result of empirical statistical studies. And you're  still going to disagree with it?! You've put up zero evidence for your position apart from a series of unsupported assertions  that fly directly in the face of the evidence.  You clearly have some vested emotional interest in asserting your position now matter how ridiculous it is. People like you are why internet chat gets such a bad name. You're a joke. You're dismissed - I'm off to speak to rational people.
    2
  4. Bart Bols Not at all. As I said, it's not a strictly numerical issue, which is precisely what you reduced it to. The exclusion zone around Chernobyl STILL covers over 1000 square miles 30 years later, and children were being born with mutation for years afterwards. Simply comparing deaths for deaths is a simplistic way to evaluate potential damage.
    1
  5. Bart Bols Generally speaking, I would not especially value anecdotal data, especially from such a small sample size, as that offered by yakumo961 (below your post) but there is a wealth of data to show increased medical problems and birth defects following the two atomic bombs, just as there is to support Chernobyl - National Geographic even  did an article on Chernobyl repercussions . For you to claim that there is no reliable evidence of Chernobyl suggests that you are either wilfully ignorant, or just plain lying. Merely googling the words "Chernobyl birth defects" provides a wealth of sources that disprove your contention, including this one http://www.chernobyl-international.com/about-chernobyl/facts-and-figures which states "UNICEF found increases in children’s disease rates, including 38 percent increase in malignant tumours, 43 percent in blood circulatory illnesses and 63 percent in disorders of the bone, muscle and connective tissue system. Children born since 1986 are affected by a 200 percent increase in birth defects and a 250 percent increase in congenital birth deformities. 85 percent of Belarusian children are deemed to be Chernobyl victims: they carry “genetic markers” that could affect their health at any time and can be passed on to the next generation."
    1