5 ms·

It may make you feel better to assume that those downvoting your post are part of some pro-nuclear conspiracy, but the truth of the matter is that you appear to

It may make you feel better to assume that those downvoting your post are part of some pro-nuclear conspiracy, but the truth of the matter is that you appear to have an unscientifically hyperbolic understanding of what the effects of both disasters were, and you are as a result being downvoted by people who are better-educated about this subject.

frik 10y ago
Those should get off one's high horse. Yeah, it seems some received biased (higher?) education and don't grasp the long term effects. Playing the conspiracy card is just stupid. It might be a cultural issue. Objectively, atomic technology is only viable if you don't even think about longterm storage and possible disastrous fallout events. At the moment I live in a first world country that never operated (and never will) atomic power plants (it was voted against it). It produces more power than needed with water, gas, wind and photovoltaic power plants and closed all coal power plants years ago. And yes I know on HN many lobby for atomic research and programs. Some are pretty irrational to the society and environment, and look only for their own wallet.
- coddingtonbear 10y ago
  I know you probably won't care to take this seriously, but you may stand to benefit by checking what you are basing your opinion upon; there is a fantastic amount of misinformation on this subject accepted as truth, and doing some basic research may show you that your beliefs are not grounded in reality. The following things are true, but do feel free to double-check, these facts are not controversial: nuclear energy is far, far safer per kWh than those power sources your country voluntarily switched to; the UN -- using the very conservative & pessimistic linear-no-threshold model -- expects that approximately 4,000 people will eventually die as a result of our most catastrophic nuclear disaster in human history (it seems others in this thread have given you good examples of disasters caused by non-nuclear power sources, so I won't repeat those numbers here); and the volume of waste generated by a 1 GWe nuclear reactor (were it reprocessed and vitrified) would fill right around three cubic meters. Those things are probably a little hard for you to swallow -- I understand, you've probably spent your entire life being preached to about the dangers of nuclear power, especially if you're in a country that's remotely close to the disaster in Ukraine -- but, really, try to take a deep breath and make sure you know why you believe what you do.
  - hga 10y ago
    the volume of waste generated by a 1 GWe nuclear reactor (were it reprocessed and vitrified) would fill right around three cubic meters And that waste will be no more radioactive than the ore it was mined from in about 600 years. (Now, that's not entirely safe stuff for your children to roll around in, but it helps put the issue in perspective.)

frik 10y ago

Those should get off one's high horse. Yeah, it seems some received biased (higher?) education and don't grasp the long term effects. Playing the conspiracy card is just stupid. It might be a cultural issue. Objectively, atomic technology is only viable if you don't even think about longterm storage and possible disastrous fallout events. At the moment I live in a first world country that never operated (and never will) atomic power plants (it was voted against it). It produces more power than needed with water, gas, wind and photovoltaic power plants and closed all coal power plants years ago. And yes I know on HN many lobby for atomic research and programs. Some are pretty irrational to the society and environment, and look only for their own wallet.

coddingtonbear 10y ago
I know you probably won't care to take this seriously, but you may stand to benefit by checking what you are basing your opinion upon; there is a fantastic amount of misinformation on this subject accepted as truth, and doing some basic research may show you that your beliefs are not grounded in reality. The following things are true, but do feel free to double-check, these facts are not controversial: nuclear energy is far, far safer per kWh than those power sources your country voluntarily switched to; the UN -- using the very conservative & pessimistic linear-no-threshold model -- expects that approximately 4,000 people will eventually die as a result of our most catastrophic nuclear disaster in human history (it seems others in this thread have given you good examples of disasters caused by non-nuclear power sources, so I won't repeat those numbers here); and the volume of waste generated by a 1 GWe nuclear reactor (were it reprocessed and vitrified) would fill right around three cubic meters. Those things are probably a little hard for you to swallow -- I understand, you've probably spent your entire life being preached to about the dangers of nuclear power, especially if you're in a country that's remotely close to the disaster in Ukraine -- but, really, try to take a deep breath and make sure you know why you believe what you do.
- hga 10y ago
  the volume of waste generated by a 1 GWe nuclear reactor (were it reprocessed and vitrified) would fill right around three cubic meters And that waste will be no more radioactive than the ore it was mined from in about 600 years. (Now, that's not entirely safe stuff for your children to roll around in, but it helps put the issue in perspective.)