Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
1–10 of 168 posts
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#2Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#3We should be building far more nuclear.
We wildly overengineered on safety regulations making them far more costly and risky to build than they actually need to be.
Even our older Gen II nuclear reactors from the 1990's are orders of magnitude safer than current fossil fuel power stations, in terms of both released radiation and lost human lifespan years.
Moreover, the higher electricity prices that resulted from using non-nuclear power lead to ICE vehicles remaining more prevalent than they should be, and non-heat-pump heating remaining more prevalent than it should be, leading to millions more years of human lifespan lost.
From a health perspective, blocking nuclear with overregulation was one of societies biggest health policy failures.
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#4Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#5We should be building far more nuclear. We wildly overengineered on safety regulations making them far more costly and risky to build than they actually need to be. Even our older Gen II nuclear reactors from the 1990's are orders of magnitude safer than current fossil fuel power stations, in terms of both released radiation and lost human lifespan years. Moreover, the higher electricity prices that resulted from usi…
Who decides they are over engineered on safety?
Didn’t we already learn better safe than sorry?
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#6We should be building far more nuclear. We wildly overengineered on safety regulations making them far more costly and risky to build than they actually need to be. Even our older Gen II nuclear reactors from the 1990's are orders of magnitude safer than current fossil fuel power stations, in terms of both released radiation and lost human lifespan years. Moreover, the higher electricity prices that resulted from usi…
Who decides they are over engineered on safety? Didn’t we already learn better safe than sorry?
[deleted]
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#7[flagged]
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#8We should be building far more nuclear. We wildly overengineered on safety regulations making them far more costly and risky to build than they actually need to be. Even our older Gen II nuclear reactors from the 1990's are orders of magnitude safer than current fossil fuel power stations, in terms of both released radiation and lost human lifespan years. Moreover, the higher electricity prices that resulted from usi…
Who decides they are over engineered on safety? Didn’t we already learn better safe than sorry?
"better safe than sorry" is the definition of a slippery slope.
but I'm curious: what event do you think taught us that?
IMO, there's far mode damage being done to the world by, say, mercury in batteries than by nuclear accidents (of which chernobyl is the only serious one).
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#9We should be building far more nuclear. We wildly overengineered on safety regulations making them far more costly and risky to build than they actually need to be. Even our older Gen II nuclear reactors from the 1990's are orders of magnitude safer than current fossil fuel power stations, in terms of both released radiation and lost human lifespan years. Moreover, the higher electricity prices that resulted from usi…
What do you mean over engineered? Genuinely very curious, I thought the problem boiled down essentially to 'lack of will' and that there exist very safe reactor designs.
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#10[flagged]
What does this have to do with the article?