• Captain Baka@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    3 months ago

    “Safe”. Yeah. Let’s talk about Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. All that was kinda not so safe, don’t you think?

      • Captain Baka@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        200 years vs. 70 years. IDK if this is comparable. Also it is so that with nuclear accidents theres a lot of additional environmental damage, not just the human casualties.

        Not defending coal mining here, coal is no good energy source by all means.

        • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Coal is often radioactive when it comes out of the ground, and thanks to poor regulations, is often radioactive when it goes into the powerplant, leading to radioactive particles coming out of the smokestacks and landing anywhere downwind of the plants.

          More people have died from radiation poisoning from coal than from all of the nuclear accidents combined. But, as you said, 200 years vs. 70 years. But, also, nuclear is much more heavily regulated than coal in this regard due to the severity of those accidents. The risk of a dangerous nuclear power plant is nowhere near as large as commonly believed. It doesn’t take long to find longlasting environmental disasters due to fossil fuels, from oil spills to powerplant disasters. They’re used so heavily that it’s just so much more likely to occur and occur more often.

          All this to say that fossil fuels suck all around and we should be looking at all forms of replacement for them, nuclear being just one option we should be pursuing alongside all the others.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is just so fucking dumb. Yeah coal sucks. We should get rid of coal as quickly as possible. But saying nuclear is safer than coal while ignoring all other forms of energy that are orders of magnitude safer is as disingenuous as it gets.

    • elfahor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      All of those were caused by human mistake. But this does not mean that they must be discarded. Because human mistake happens. If it is with a solar panel, it’s inconsequential. Not with a nuclear reactor. So yes, it is an issue to consider, but in truth all it means is that we have to be VERY careful

      • Captain Baka@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        If it is so that a human mistake can cause a big number of casualties and massive environmental damage it is far from safe, even if you are very careful.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Still less radiation than coal plants release in normal operation.

      • Captain Baka@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        You mean the modern reactors who are still not in a commercial productive state? But even if these would be NOW ready to actually be available it’s still so that there are a vast overwhelming majority of the old reactors which are not as safe as the meme was insinuating.