4 ms·

Nuclear power is actually safer (joules generated per deaths caused) than fossil fuel power generation. That's with old fashioned reactors, and if you include d

Nuclear power is actually safer (joules generated per deaths caused) than fossil fuel power generation. That's with old fashioned reactors, and if you include deaths caused by fossil fuel pollution the issue of safety is far from arguable.

yesenadam 9y ago
I guess you don't have very accurate figures on the deaths caused by existing nuclear waste in the future either.
- walterstucco 9y ago
  Nobody does
- astrodust 9y ago
  Nuclear waste gets safer over time, so the risk diminishes. Coal is a problem today.
newnewpdro 9y ago
That's obviously unprovable rhetoric, why are you spewing it? We have no reliably accurate data on deaths and illnesses caused by the nuclear power industry. From the mining to the waste disposal, and the plant operation - they all have very significant mishaps putting cancer-causing radioactive materials into the environment where it circulates for generations. There is no way you can honestly make such a statement because we have no way of knowing how many of the people dead from e.g. thyroid cancer are the result of nuclear energy related activities.
- rimliu 9y ago
  Nuclear power plants do not emit radiation inser normal operation. Coal power plants do. Also: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-hour-by.html/amp https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-te...
  - newnewpdro 9y ago
    Coal is not _the_ alternative. I strongly encourage you to watch [1]. Nuclear is such a disaster it's mind-boggling that anyone would still argue in favor of it today over the alternatives. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZIGHv3khE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZIGHv3khE
roenxi 9y ago
In particular, the idea we have a safety-first culture is still a fair way off. If motor vehicles were held to the safety standards of nuclear power, we would all be riding bicycles.
drjesusphd 9y ago
Deaths per joule doesn't account for the safety issues if nuclear power were more widespread. The deaths caused by weapon proliferation and the long-term ecological impact of more nuclear accidents doesn't scale linearly. We can handle an accident every decade or so. But if nuclear power replaces fossil fuels, we're looking at closer to one every year. It's unknown what the long-term consequences of that are.

yesenadam 9y ago

I guess you don't have very accurate figures on the deaths caused by existing nuclear waste in the future either.

walterstucco 9y ago
Nobody does
astrodust 9y ago
Nuclear waste gets safer over time, so the risk diminishes. Coal is a problem today.

newnewpdro 9y ago

That's obviously unprovable rhetoric, why are you spewing it? We have no reliably accurate data on deaths and illnesses caused by the nuclear power industry. From the mining to the waste disposal, and the plant operation - they all have very significant mishaps putting cancer-causing radioactive materials into the environment where it circulates for generations. There is no way you can honestly make such a statement because we have no way of knowing how many of the people dead from e.g. thyroid cancer are the result of nuclear energy related activities.

rimliu 9y ago
Nuclear power plants do not emit radiation inser normal operation. Coal power plants do. Also: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-hour-by.html/amp https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-te...
- newnewpdro 9y ago
  Coal is not _the_ alternative. I strongly encourage you to watch [1]. Nuclear is such a disaster it's mind-boggling that anyone would still argue in favor of it today over the alternatives. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZIGHv3khE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZIGHv3khE

roenxi 9y ago

In particular, the idea we have a safety-first culture is still a fair way off. If motor vehicles were held to the safety standards of nuclear power, we would all be riding bicycles.

drjesusphd 9y ago

Deaths per joule doesn't account for the safety issues if nuclear power were more widespread. The deaths caused by weapon proliferation and the long-term ecological impact of more nuclear accidents doesn't scale linearly. We can handle an accident every decade or so. But if nuclear power replaces fossil fuels, we're looking at closer to one every year. It's unknown what the long-term consequences of that are.