111–120 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell us you don't know that even scientific community is in agreement about this (and Chernobyl) without telling you don't know
Yes the scientific community is absolutely in agreement with evacuation from the plume being unnecessary /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell us you don't know that even scientific community is in agreement about this (and Chernobyl) without telling you don't know
Yes the scientific community is absolutely in agreement with evacuation from the plume being unnecessary /s
https://blog.japanwondertravel.com/fukushima-exclusion-zone-...
Which is a handy counter to claims of it being off limits for centuries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not 100% true. Here is a counter-example. First, guess what is one of the most abundant element on earth. Uranium. [1] Now consider what is a common pollutant when we mine coal or burn it. Uranium. [2,3, 6] Saying that we should burn coal because we are afraid of nuclear/radioactive waste is ad absurdum. And unlike nuclear plants it is questionable if we process the radioactive waste in question [4 & 5 show the contr…
> First, guess what is one of the most abundant element on earth. Uranium. Your source says it's the 48th most abundant element in crustal rocks. Doesn't sound that common to me.
It can do better than nuclear's really low death counts and cost less, leaving more money to fund vaccines etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on if you count the $2T cleanup cost for Fukushima as limited. After Fukushima about all plants in the west had to install independent core cooling because the regulators realized the risk was systemic, even though the cause was special. A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 when many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. It…
> the $2T cleanup cost for Fukushima as limited. Let's ignore the earthquake and tsunami that happened and pretend that all that cleanup is only due to Fukushima. > A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 Severe as in: exploded? people died?
Typical nuclear proponents, trying to shift blame. The $2T is for the nuclear side of things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the cost of an accident is also not driven by facts but by politics and emotion. And that makes the cost of an accident not just much higher, but also essentially incalculable. "How irrational are the public and the pandering politicians going to be this decade?" is a difficult variable to price into your models. And since the costs are, in fact, largely driven by the politics and irrational publi…
The cost is poisoning a large swath of land for centuries to come. It's not just politics and emotion, it's transforming a large area of a country into a completely unproductive land, for centuries, where no one can live or work at... How can you not be a afraid when the potential damage is so large? And I'm an advocate for nuclear power, I believe we should've invested in it decades ago to avoid the worst of climate…
No it's not. For example, the vast majority of the soil "cleanup" in Fukushima is completely unnecessary, as was most of the evacuation. Another example: the fishermen of the Fukushima prefecture are suffering. But not because there's anything wrong with the fish, it's that people are afraid.
Fear of nuclear kills far more people than nuclear does.
Even the Chernobyl "red zone" has been shown to be net beneficial to the wildlife there. Hardly a sign of "poisoning".
Again, you are speaking from emotion, not fact.
> It's not just politics and emotion
Not just, but mostly.
> How can you not be a afraid when the potential damage is so large?
Because the potential damage is not actually "so large", as has been amply demonstrated by now, see in particularly Fukushima, but even Chernobyl. Never mind non-events like Three Mile Island.
And fear is never a good reaction, because it leads exactly to the distortions of perception that you are demonstrating.
LOL. He laments how billions are spent for nuclear reactor safety and then uses the casualty numbers based on those billions being spent [1], to calculate the casualty impact of building nuclear factories with more abandon and without such spending (as if the numbers would be the same). Also hidden in the small print, the assumption that future accidents would be "no worse" that previous ones. Because, you know, that…
He says 'only' 26 more Fukushima/Chernobyl type accidents. Exclusion zones all around the world. Not many people died hopefully, but you can't go back to your home either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cost is poisoning a large swath of land for centuries to come. It's not just politics and emotion, it's transforming a large area of a country into a completely unproductive land, for centuries, where no one can live or work at... How can you not be a afraid when the potential damage is so large? And I'm an advocate for nuclear power, I believe we should've invested in it decades ago to avoid the worst of climate…
> The cost is poisoning a large swath of land for centuries to come. No it's not. For example, the vast majority of the soil "cleanup" in Fukushima is completely unnecessary, as was most of the evacuation. Another example: the fishermen of the Fukushima prefecture are suffering. But not because there's anything wrong with the fish, it's that people are afraid. Fear of nuclear kills far more people than nuclear does.…
Can you provide sources for this claim?
> Even the Chernobyl "red zone" has been shown to be net beneficial to the wildlife there. Hardly a sign of "poisoning".
There's still no scientific consensus about the effects of radiation on fauna in the CEZ [0]. You have an opinion but we still haven't figured out how damaging the radiation there is for animals or not. I'd rather not have humans living around a potentially dangerous poisoned area until the effects are understood.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X1...
This conclusion (i.e. that nuclear power is too safe) could very well be correct. But I’d like to see it underpinned with more solid economic reasoning. For example, while few people die from nuclear accidents they tend to be enormously costly. It may not be rational to spend billions of dollars to prevent one death, but it may well be worth billions of dollars to prevent the Fukushima disaster.
Just like the (vast) majority of negative health effects from both Chernobyl and Fukushima were from the evacuation, not from the radiation.
Fear of nuclear is far deadlier than nuclear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people might be fearful but the real problem remains: Nuclear can be safe, cheap and built quickly. Pick two at best.
So if we had let's say 20 or 30 years ago started with the safe and cheap. Where would we be now with CO2 emissions? Or would have it been even slower? If it can be cheap and safe shouldn't we have started massive scale yesterday?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
The chart is clear. Nuclear is in no way competitive. Not to mention all the other issues around nuclear proliferation, centralization of power, risks in case of war and terrorism. And lack of cooling water due to climate change etc.
