3 ms·
> includes accidents in the mining of the raw material, the processing and production phases, and pollution-related impacts
by thatswrong0 8y ago
> includes accidents in the mining of the raw material, the processing and production phases, and pollution-related impacts
- merb 8y agoand of course nuclear material won't be mined, processed and won't have any production phase at all. and building a plant is as harmless as anything else.... yeah, clearly. also their death toll article.... I mean most russion publications think that chernobyl caused the death of a million people, their article was in "the thousand". of course we can always think nicely about anything and be postivie till the end, however humanity can't work with technologies that causes a huge death toll when it comes to desasters, because the market will always bring us to a desaster. also the storage of waste is not a problem we can solve. no human lives over a thousand years, thus no storage will ever be safe.
- joefourier 8y agoAccording to the WHO, outdoor pollution from burning fossil fuels and biomass causes at least 2 million deaths annually. Even if the 1 million death toll were true, nuclear would still be vastly safer than coal power. You could additionally push for the adoption of nuclear only in well-developed countries if you were adamant about safety, as in the United States the death toll from nuclear is 0.1 per year. But the primary benefit of nuclear would be the reduction in CO2 emissions, with the tremendous safety gains being a bonus. If you only cared about reducing CO2 emissions you could have a Chernobyl every year while still being safer and less polluting than coal power.