4 ms·

This is reductive. It's not reasonable to simply ignore the devastating fallout of nuclear accidents beyond human causalities. This doesn't engage with the rea

by throw2016 9y ago

This is reductive. It's not reasonable to simply ignore the devastating fallout of nuclear accidents beyond human causalities. This doesn't engage with the real world consequences of nuclear accidents that are devastating to life and the environment, long lasting and extremely expensive and complex to cleanup.

Nomentatus 9y ago
Wonderful way to create wildlife refuges, though.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
GVIrish 9y ago
Not saying we should ignore the environmental impact, that's what I was getting at in my first sentence when I said falling off a roof and a nuclear meltdown clearly aren't the same level of event. I'm simply saying that people fear nuclear power because they think there's a high risk that a lot of people will die when that hasn't proven to be the case thus far. There's a real discussion to be made on the trade-offs between the potential environmental damage caused by an accident versus the looming threat of climate change. Unfortunately that discussion isn't really being had because nuclear power's public perception hurdle is so great.
nickik 9y ago
On any measure you look at nuclear is superior. It kills less people, it uses less land, it uses less resources, it uses less mining and so on. Areas of nuclear fallout and in protection zones are actually reclaimed by nature and animals don't give a shit about living there. Environmentalist should love nuclear. There is that movement called 'eco-modernist' who subscribe to that. > nuclear accidents that are devastating to life Hardly. Most of the people that were evacuated were not in danger, devastating to their live was government action because of fear mongering. Far more people died of the evacuation then of the radiation. People are again living in cities near Chernobyl and their cancer rates are not unusual.

4 ms·

This is reductive. It's not reasonable to simply ignore the devastating fallout of nuclear accidents beyond human causalities. This doesn't engage with the rea

by throw2016 9y ago

Nomentatus 9y ago
Wonderful way to create wildlife refuges, though.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
GVIrish 9y ago
Not saying we should ignore the environmental impact, that's what I was getting at in my first sentence when I said falling off a roof and a nuclear meltdown clearly aren't the same level of event. I'm simply saying that people fear nuclear power because they think there's a high risk that a lot of people will die when that hasn't proven to be the case thus far. There's a real discussion to be made on the trade-offs between the potential environmental damage caused by an accident versus the looming threat of climate change. Unfortunately that discussion isn't really being had because nuclear power's public perception hurdle is so great.
nickik 9y ago
On any measure you look at nuclear is superior. It kills less people, it uses less land, it uses less resources, it uses less mining and so on. Areas of nuclear fallout and in protection zones are actually reclaimed by nature and animals don't give a shit about living there. Environmentalist should love nuclear. There is that movement called 'eco-modernist' who subscribe to that. > nuclear accidents that are devastating to life Hardly. Most of the people that were evacuated were not in danger, devastating to their live was government action because of fear mongering. Far more people died of the evacuation then of the radiation. People are again living in cities near Chernobyl and their cancer rates are not unusual.