Risk of another Chernobyl or Fukushima type accident plausible, experts say

Researchers at the University of Sussex, in England, and ETH Zurich, in Switzerland, have analysed more than 200 nuclear accidents, and – estimating and controlling for effects of industry responses to previous disasters – provide a grim assessment of the risk of nuclear power.

...

They estimate that Fukushima- and Chernobyl-scale disasters are still more likely than not once or twice per century, and that accidents on the scale of the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island in the USA (a damage cost of about 10 Billion USD) are more likely than not to occur every 10-20 years.
Source

I'm of the belief that one or two Fukushima-type disasters per century will eventually lead add up to an extinction-level event. In the article linked below an expert claims that the Fukushima disaster will continue for a thousand years or so.

Risk Expert: “High risk” of nuclear holocaust at Fukushima — Plant to keep emitting radioactive materials “for a thousand years or so” (AUDIO)

Without technology existing to handle something like a Fukushima disaster, 500 years from now there could be a 10 or more of that type of disaster going on concurrently all over the world based on the research presented at the top of this post.

a reply to: Profusion

Animals are thriving in Chernobyl, people go there as tourist, not sure when the extinction level is kicking in, not saying it's good, but it's not all that bad that we all gonna die.

But i agree that the next nuclear disaster is waiting around the corner, we should do all it takes to avoid it.

a reply to: Mianeye

"In Chernobyl, all major groups of animals that we surveyed were less abundant in more radioactive areas."

Animals are thriving in Chernybol? What's your definition of "thriving"?

Given overwhelming evidence of genetic damage and injury to individuals, it is not surprising that populations of many organisms in highly contaminated areas have shrunk. In Chernobyl, all major groups of animals that we surveyed were less abundant in more radioactive areas. This includes birds, butterflies, dragonflies, bees, grasshoppers, spiders and large and small mammals.

Not every species shows the same pattern of decline. Many species, including wolves, show no effects of radiation on their population density. A few species of birds appear to be more abundant in more radioactive areas. In both cases, higher numbers may reflect the fact that there are fewer competitors or predators for these species in highly radioactive areas.
At Chernobyl and Fukushima, Radioactivity Has Seriously Harmed Wildlife

a reply to: Profusion

That link was an interesting read and gave me some new insight to the state of the Chernobyl meltdown and wild life.

I should have provided link to my statement that wild life is thriving, because that's what earlier studies has been saying, i don't think those links are necessary now.

But your link tell's another story, and clearly we have to look at it in a new way.

I will admit i was wrong or that the information i have gotten was not accurate.

A little late S+F.