| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
GATSU
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 16427
|
 Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 1:48 am |
 |
|
|
You mean it was intended to avoid being as bad as Chernobyl, but failed.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Egan Loo
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1472
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 2:08 am |
|
|
| GATSU wrote: | | You mean it was intended to avoid being as bad as Chernobyl, but failed. |
Fukushima Daiichi is not as bad as Chernobyl in deaths, injuries, or amount of radioactive isotopes released. It's not good, but it's also not as bad as Chernobyl.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
GATSU
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 16427
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 7:27 am |
|
|
Actually, they've officially declared it the worst since Chernobyl, so....
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
