I think the active deployment of the bombs in Japan in WW2 was a diaster as a result of war that was worse than Cheronobyl which was unintentional. But maybe that's just subjective.

nagasaki and hiroshima.

And yet environmentally, and human health-wise fossil fuels are worse than nuclear. it was an horrendous event for sure, yet people shouldn't get down on nuclear power as part of the solution for phasing out fossil fuels.

"There is no question,” says Joseph Romm, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington DC. “Nothing is worse than fossil fuels for killing people.”

A 2002 review by the IAE put together existing studies to compare fatalities per unit of power produced for several leading energy sources. The agency examined the life cycle of each fuel from extraction to post-use and included deaths from accidents as well as long-term exposure to emissions or radiation. Nuclear came out best, and coal was the deadliest energy source.

The explanation lies in the large number of deaths caused by pollution. “It’s the whole life cycle that leads to a trail of injuries, illness and death,” says Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Fine particles from coal power plants kill an estimated 13,200 people each year in the US alone, according to the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force (The Toll from Coal, 2010). Additional fatalities come from mining and transporting coal, and other forms of pollution associated with coal. In contrast,the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN estimate that the death toll from cancer following the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl will reach around 9000.

In fact, the numbers show that catastrophic events are not the leading cause of deaths associated with nuclear power. More than half of all deaths stem from uranium mining, says the IEA. But even when this is included, the overall toll remains significantly lower than for all other fuel sources."

- New Scientist

And yet environmentally, and human health-wise fossil fuels are worse than nuclear. it was an horrendous event for sure, yet people shouldn't get down on nuclear power as part of the solution for phasing out fossil fuels.

"There is no question,” says Joseph Romm, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington DC. “Nothing is worse than fossil fuels for killing people.”

A 2002 review by the IAE put together existing studies to compare fatalities per unit of power produced for several leading energy sources. The agency examined the life cycle of each fuel from extraction to post-use and included deaths from accidents as well as long-term exposure to emissions or radiation. Nuclear came out best, and coal was the deadliest energy source.

The explanation lies in the large number of deaths caused by pollution. “It’s the whole life cycle that leads to a trail of injuries, illness and death,” says Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Fine particles from coal power plants kill an estimated 13,200 people each year in the US alone, according to the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force (The Toll from Coal, 2010). Additional fatalities come from mining and transporting coal, and other forms of pollution associated with coal. In contrast,the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN estimate that the death toll from cancer following the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl will reach around 9000.

In fact, the numbers show that catastrophic events are not the leading cause of deaths associated with nuclear power. More than half of all deaths stem from uranium mining, says the IEA. But even when this is included, the overall toll remains significantly lower than for all other fuel sources."

- New Scientist

well the reality is that nuclear power IS extremely efficient at providing tonssss of power and frankly causes WAY less damage to the planet than continually using fossil fuels.

That said, obviously like any powerful thing it can be extremely dangerous.

if people could be trusted and everything was done to the exact t and how it should be, then nuclear power would be by far the most logical power source for the planet at this point, both for preserving human kind and the planet itself.

Obviously though there's human error to consider and the disasters that can be involved. All I know though is that the majority of incidents where nuclear power plants have caused disasters have been in circumstances where the power plant was in an arguably questionable location (Japan islands) OR being run by an extremely on edge super power (the Soviet Union).

The vast majority of the time (basically 99.9% of the time) nuclear power plants have ran perfectly fine with a tonnnn of safecalls and procedural activities to make sure nothing goes awry. I'm just pointing out that the debates about nuclear power being so dangerous is not entirely logical.

The giant oil spill in the Gulf a few years ago or whatever did far more damage to the ecosystem than any nuclear power plant issue ever has.

Nuclear plant is as viable, if not MORE viable than using fossil fuels. Anyone under the delusion that constantly using fossil fuels is not damaging the human race AND the planet is looking with their eyes closed. Nuclear power just ends up creating waste, it doesn't activitely really hurt the planet like burning a kajillion gallons of fuel and coal does.

Although in a perfect world we'd find a way to take more advantage of solar, wind turbine, or ocean current power. Its unfortunate that its still quite expensive and/or awkward geograpichally to successful use those means of power

Both were necessary in ending the world, and neither nuclear bomb had a long term effect on those cities. People still live there with little affect to their lives, but radiation levels in the chernobyl are still far too high for any civilization to return for a long time (even if its no longer close to deadly).

WTF? without getting into a political debate NEITHER were necessary as the result was already decided, they just sped up the process. The second bomb definitely wasn't necessary as Japan was already at the negotiating table for terms of surrender at that stage just they were still demanding their political structure stay in place. The effects of those two bombs are still there today, they killed hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians. People in those cities are still suffering inflated rates of cancer and other health side effects of radiation poisoning to this day. So while these cities may not be radioactive today some 70 years later the effects are still being felt. If this was done by any other country it would have been listed as a war crime for targetting civilians.

Japan wasn't going to surrender otherwise. Why didn't Japan surrender once the nazi's lost instead of waiting till this happened? There was no other solution that would result in less loss of life. If you can give me one, I will be shocked.