I know how safe they haven’t been - so that’s something.
I know environmental regulations mean nothing anymore and safety costs a lot of money. And profit is always the aim.
I’m sure it’s decades ahead of what was tried in the 70s and 80s. I’m sure it’s light years over coal and gas. And yet, I’m hesitant.
Can we just have renewables please? Look- other people got ‘em all over now. Wind, solar, wave, geothermal, battery types and capacities improving all the time. Ffs this was what it was it was supposed to be the whole time.
You can probably name every major nuclear accident or incident that’s ever happened. Not because they were all major catastrophes that caused mass loss of life. But because they happen so infrequently and blown out of proportion.
Fukashima was the worst accident in the last 30 years with 0 fatalities.
In the US alone over 100 people died due to wind turbines from things like falling ice or structural integrity failure. None of those people worked on turbines and happened to be bystanders to the incident.
Things like fossil fuels have thousands of deaths. But you’re trying to say nuclear is dangerous?
There is at least one fatality. Reported in 2018, a worker has died from a lung cancer. 2400 people died during the evacuation.
The number of deaths in these “accidents” is minimized, partly due to a lack of transparency and government interests, and partly because it is often difficult to establish causal links.
Finally, the calculation models are outdated and rely on datas from Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
Ok, how safe haven’t they been? How many were worse than deepwater horizon?
I’m guessing you’ve happily consumed what was given to you on a spoon and accepted that it was representative of the bigger picture.
I grew up an hour from a 1GW reactor that got shut down in part due to “concerned citizens” like yourself. The site it stood on is still periodically checked by the DOE but is now a recreational area. How often do old coal plants do that?
Ok, how safe haven’t they been? How many were worse than deepwater horizon?
See above. None were worse than Hiroshima - at least as far as we can determine.
I’m guessing you’ve happily consumed what was given to you on a spoon and accepted that it was representative of the bigger picture.
? Okay? Fuck you too, I guess?
I grew up an hour from a 1GW reactor that got shut down in part due to “concerned citizens” like yourself. The site it stood on is still periodically checked by the DOE but is now a recreational area. How often do old coal plants do that?
So you were heavily propagandized as a child. Makes sense. The reasons why nuclear and coal plants are different are many and varied! For more information, consult your local library.
Do… do you think that “Hiroshima” was a nuclear power plant that “accidentally exploded”, as opposed to a purpose built weapon?
Okay? Fuck you too, I guess?
The point they were making was that there is a proven long standing history of “other players” like the oil industry heavily astroturfing against nuclear, because they wanted to protect their own industry from a better alternative.
So you were heavily propagandized as a child.
Seems like you were literally the one propagandized. Only people who are misinformed are so against nuclear.
Compare what you think you know with the reality of how nuclear power is used all over the world and safely.
Even Fukushima wasn’t that bad in terms of human casualties. It was the tsunami that caused all the loss of life and damage.
Not to say that the Fukushima nuclear incident wasn’t a disaster. But there were no direct deaths from it, and as far as anyone knows, no one has died of even indirect causes.
And there are a LOT of operating nuclear plants all over the world.
Edit: nuclear power generation has the 2nd least amount of deaths attributed to it out of all energy sources, beaten only by solar and only by a small margin.
How is it bizarre? Did you ever understand the qualifier? I’m pretty sure you didn’t, so I’ll explain it for you.
It “wasn’t that bad” in regards to human life, because no one died. The implied other side of the quality is that it still was bad because there was a release of radioactive material into the environment.
So you see how it’s bad, unless we’re talking about humans literally dying as a result.
Yay? Am I supposed to give nuclear a point because “only” the environment and animal life was trashed? Okay, sure. “Less Deadly To Humans” than oil. Y’know people still eat Gulf seafood, but if that pipe was spewing radioactive waste for a month, they wouldn’t.
Actually, they probably would. I dunno. Renewables. That’s all.
Yay? Am I supposed to give nuclear a point because “only” the environment and animal life was trashed?
You’re missing the part where Fukushima and Chernobyl were the only major/catastrophic nuclear power accidents in history (edit: aside from a wild one from the 50s before we really understood nuclear energy). And both of them were a result of both bad policy and, more importantly, bad tech/design.
Chernobyl was especially stupid on literally every level possible.
And, like I said earlier but you seem to have “forgotten”, nuclear is safer (has caused less deaths) than ALL other forms of power generation (including renewables) other than solar. And it’s almost on par with solar.
Everything has trade-offs.
Solar needs a LOT of land, works only during the day. Less effective the further north/south you get from the equator.
Wind only works well in certain regions, and requires a significant amount of concrete to build.
Wave power generation only works along coastlines or out at sea. And transmitting that power to where it’s needed isn’t easy and is costly.
Hydro dams are extremely limited to where they can be built, and transitional designs are extremely damaging (although newer types are much better)
Nuclear plants can be built just about anywhere. And newer designs are extremely safe. Canada’s CanDu reactors are practically instructable.
A proper solution is a baseline of nuclear with wind, solar, hydro being built where possible.
China doesn’t deliver much useful information about the incidents of its fast growing fleet of nuclear power plants. The same problem exists with Russia, after Glasnost -transparency again under Vladimir Putin.
1993 Tomsk-7 accident at the Reprocessing Complex in Seversk, Russia, when a tank exploded while being cleaned with nitricacid. The explosion released a cloud of radioactive gas (INES level 4).[5]
Nice list, but what you’ve demonstrated is that you in fact don’t understand.
You’ve listed out just about every nuclear incident in history. And I mean every nuclear incident, not just nuclear power related. A number of the ones you’ve listed were medical accidents (patients receiving excessive doses, and one incident where a medical device being dismantled was done improperly), or accidental exposure from orphaned sources.
The reality is that there have been no deaths from nuclear power generation in this millennium.
Excluding Chernobyl, 90% of all radiation-exposure deaths from nuclear generation happened before 1962. If we include Chernobyl, then that jumps to 1986 (the year of Chernobyl).
After Chernobyl, there were 5 deaths from radiation exposure, and none after 2000.
Modern nuclear is extremely safe.
The reason all of those incidents have their own Wikipedia pages is because incidents/accidents in a global scale are very rare, and when they do happen it’s a full-blown investigation with extensive reports. Even for a minor alert of elevated radiation readings by the nuclear facility.
If you had bothered to read the links you posted, instead of copying and pasting from Wikipedia (or wherever you copied from) you would have understood that.
I know how safe they haven’t been - so that’s something.
I know environmental regulations mean nothing anymore and safety costs a lot of money. And profit is always the aim.
I’m sure it’s decades ahead of what was tried in the 70s and 80s. I’m sure it’s light years over coal and gas. And yet, I’m hesitant.
Can we just have renewables please? Look- other people got ‘em all over now. Wind, solar, wave, geothermal, battery types and capacities improving all the time. Ffs this was what it was it was supposed to be the whole time.
You can probably name every major nuclear accident or incident that’s ever happened. Not because they were all major catastrophes that caused mass loss of life. But because they happen so infrequently and blown out of proportion.
Fukashima was the worst accident in the last 30 years with 0 fatalities. In the US alone over 100 people died due to wind turbines from things like falling ice or structural integrity failure. None of those people worked on turbines and happened to be bystanders to the incident.
Things like fossil fuels have thousands of deaths. But you’re trying to say nuclear is dangerous?
There is at least one fatality. Reported in 2018, a worker has died from a lung cancer. 2400 people died during the evacuation.
The number of deaths in these “accidents” is minimized, partly due to a lack of transparency and government interests, and partly because it is often difficult to establish causal links. Finally, the calculation models are outdated and rely on datas from Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
In other words, “there is no causal link”
Well I was open to the discussion until this so.
Vote: No.
Ok, how safe haven’t they been? How many were worse than deepwater horizon?
I’m guessing you’ve happily consumed what was given to you on a spoon and accepted that it was representative of the bigger picture.
I grew up an hour from a 1GW reactor that got shut down in part due to “concerned citizens” like yourself. The site it stood on is still periodically checked by the DOE but is now a recreational area. How often do old coal plants do that?
See above. None were worse than Hiroshima - at least as far as we can determine.
? Okay? Fuck you too, I guess?
So you were heavily propagandized as a child. Makes sense. The reasons why nuclear and coal plants are different are many and varied! For more information, consult your local library.
Do… do you think that “Hiroshima” was a nuclear power plant that “accidentally exploded”, as opposed to a purpose built weapon?
The point they were making was that there is a proven long standing history of “other players” like the oil industry heavily astroturfing against nuclear, because they wanted to protect their own industry from a better alternative.
Seems like you were literally the one propagandized. Only people who are misinformed are so against nuclear.
No, you really don’t.
Compare what you think you know with the reality of how nuclear power is used all over the world and safely.
Even Fukushima wasn’t that bad in terms of human casualties. It was the tsunami that caused all the loss of life and damage.
Not to say that the Fukushima nuclear incident wasn’t a disaster. But there were no direct deaths from it, and as far as anyone knows, no one has died of even indirect causes.
And there are a LOT of operating nuclear plants all over the world.
Edit: nuclear power generation has the 2nd least amount of deaths attributed to it out of all energy sources, beaten only by solar and only by a small margin.
This is such a bizarre qualifier. Like when people handwave climate change because the rocks will still be here.
How is it bizarre? Did you ever understand the qualifier? I’m pretty sure you didn’t, so I’ll explain it for you.
It “wasn’t that bad” in regards to human life, because no one died. The implied other side of the quality is that it still was bad because there was a release of radioactive material into the environment.
So you see how it’s bad, unless we’re talking about humans literally dying as a result.
Yay? Am I supposed to give nuclear a point because “only” the environment and animal life was trashed? Okay, sure. “Less Deadly To Humans” than oil. Y’know people still eat Gulf seafood, but if that pipe was spewing radioactive waste for a month, they wouldn’t.
Actually, they probably would. I dunno. Renewables. That’s all.
You’re missing the part where Fukushima and Chernobyl were the only major/catastrophic nuclear power accidents in history (edit: aside from a wild one from the 50s before we really understood nuclear energy). And both of them were a result of both bad policy and, more importantly, bad tech/design.
Chernobyl was especially stupid on literally every level possible.
And, like I said earlier but you seem to have “forgotten”, nuclear is safer (has caused less deaths) than ALL other forms of power generation (including renewables) other than solar. And it’s almost on par with solar.
Everything has trade-offs.
Solar needs a LOT of land, works only during the day. Less effective the further north/south you get from the equator.
Wind only works well in certain regions, and requires a significant amount of concrete to build.
Wave power generation only works along coastlines or out at sea. And transmitting that power to where it’s needed isn’t easy and is costly.
Hydro dams are extremely limited to where they can be built, and transitional designs are extremely damaging (although newer types are much better)
Nuclear plants can be built just about anywhere. And newer designs are extremely safe. Canada’s CanDu reactors are practically instructable.
A proper solution is a baseline of nuclear with wind, solar, hydro being built where possible.
do you? Nuclear, Solar, and Wind are all roughly equally safe.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Yeah, I do.
Note this section:
Nice list, but what you’ve demonstrated is that you in fact don’t understand.
You’ve listed out just about every nuclear incident in history. And I mean every nuclear incident, not just nuclear power related. A number of the ones you’ve listed were medical accidents (patients receiving excessive doses, and one incident where a medical device being dismantled was done improperly), or accidental exposure from orphaned sources.
The reality is that there have been no deaths from nuclear power generation in this millennium.
Excluding Chernobyl, 90% of all radiation-exposure deaths from nuclear generation happened before 1962. If we include Chernobyl, then that jumps to 1986 (the year of Chernobyl).
After Chernobyl, there were 5 deaths from radiation exposure, and none after 2000.
Modern nuclear is extremely safe.
The reason all of those incidents have their own Wikipedia pages is because incidents/accidents in a global scale are very rare, and when they do happen it’s a full-blown investigation with extensive reports. Even for a minor alert of elevated radiation readings by the nuclear facility.
If you had bothered to read the links you posted, instead of copying and pasting from Wikipedia (or wherever you copied from) you would have understood that.
Hydropower causes more deaths than nuclear reactors
sauce
Edit: sorry, changed the link because I had copied the wrong one. New one is not AI slop, I apologize
the website appears to be an ai slop farm
And those windmills are probably chopping up squirrel suit base jumpers on like a daily basis now too.
Yeah I could see that. But it’s not a particularly strong argument for nuclear. Just a strong argument against terraforming.