3 ms·

The worst nuclear accidents that could possibly happen have already happened. We couldn't have a worse nuclear power disaster than Lake Karachay even if we trie

The worst nuclear accidents that could possibly happen have already happened. We couldn't have a worse nuclear power disaster than Lake Karachay even if we tried on purpose. And yet the sum damage they caused is a negligible blip compared to how many people die due to the use of fossil fuels on any given month of any given year. The environmental impact of nuclear power vs. fossil fuels or even renewables is just a negligible number no matter how you spin it. I too am confused like the GP poster as to how otherwise intelligent people just break down into baseless fearmongering about imaginary disaster scenarios while ignoring that today's conventional energy industry is literally thousands of times worse. If every single operational nuclear power plant had a meltdown incident after operating for 20 years, they'd still be orders of magnitude less damaging than what we're doing today. The environmental impact and safety numbers are just that far apart. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

lispm 8y ago
far from it. If nuclear fallout had been reached Tokyo, then we would talk about a much greater problem.
- ElBarto 8y ago
  An accident in a nuclear plant that was constructed in a highly seismic and tsunami-prone area isn't an argument against nuclear power. I'm sure that Germany can find a more suited location if they wanted... Anyway, France is peppered with nuclear plants and Germany is right downwind from many of them.
  - lispm 8y ago
    > Anyway, France is peppered with nuclear plants and Germany is right downwind from many of them. That's why we would like to see some of them being closed immediately.
lazyjones 8y ago
> We couldn't have a worse nuclear power disaster than Lake Karachay even if we tried on purpose. How can you write such a ridiculous sentence? We have nuclear power plants in the middle of inhabited areas with tens of millions of people who would be immediately affected by an explosion. It's a permanent subject of dispute here in Europe. > If every single operational nuclear power plant had a meltdown incident after operating for 20 years, they'd still be orders of magnitude less damaging than what we're doing today. The environmental impact and safety numbers are just that far apart One single accident in Europe would dwarf these inflated WHO numbers.
- kuzehanka 8y ago
  > We have nuclear power plants in the middle of inhabited areas with tens of millions of people who would be immediately affected by an explosion. Cite please. The tens of millions affected by a feasible powerplant issue. Explosion is not really in the realm of feasible unless we're talking about bombs or uncontained soviet reactors.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    Why would we leave out terrorist attacks? Because they destroy your argument?
    - kuzehanka 8y ago
      What would a terrorist do with a nuclear powerplant exactly? We've flown fighter jets into nuclear powerplants to test them[1]. They're protected by armed guards. The US has a nuclear emergency task force ready to fly pumps and generators to any plant. The best attack even a highly resourced terrorist could mount would be to damage the cooling tower and not really make any difference? If you're imagining some kind of super coordinated military unit taking control of a powerplant yeah sure maybe? They'd be much better used just poisoning the water supply. This is exactly the kind of baseless fear driven hypothetical sentiment that I'd like to understand. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3072967/ns/business-check_point/t/are-nuclear-plants-safe-attack/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3072967/ns/business-check_point/t/...

lispm 8y ago

far from it. If nuclear fallout had been reached Tokyo, then we would talk about a much greater problem.

ElBarto 8y ago
An accident in a nuclear plant that was constructed in a highly seismic and tsunami-prone area isn't an argument against nuclear power. I'm sure that Germany can find a more suited location if they wanted... Anyway, France is peppered with nuclear plants and Germany is right downwind from many of them.
- lispm 8y ago
  > Anyway, France is peppered with nuclear plants and Germany is right downwind from many of them. That's why we would like to see some of them being closed immediately.

lazyjones 8y ago

> We couldn't have a worse nuclear power disaster than Lake Karachay even if we tried on purpose. How can you write such a ridiculous sentence? We have nuclear power plants in the middle of inhabited areas with tens of millions of people who would be immediately affected by an explosion. It's a permanent subject of dispute here in Europe. > If every single operational nuclear power plant had a meltdown incident after operating for 20 years, they'd still be orders of magnitude less damaging than what we're doing today. The environmental impact and safety numbers are just that far apart One single accident in Europe would dwarf these inflated WHO numbers.

kuzehanka 8y ago
> We have nuclear power plants in the middle of inhabited areas with tens of millions of people who would be immediately affected by an explosion. Cite please. The tens of millions affected by a feasible powerplant issue. Explosion is not really in the realm of feasible unless we're talking about bombs or uncontained soviet reactors.
- Tomte 8y ago
  Why would we leave out terrorist attacks? Because they destroy your argument?
  - kuzehanka 8y ago
    What would a terrorist do with a nuclear powerplant exactly? We've flown fighter jets into nuclear powerplants to test them[1]. They're protected by armed guards. The US has a nuclear emergency task force ready to fly pumps and generators to any plant. The best attack even a highly resourced terrorist could mount would be to damage the cooling tower and not really make any difference? If you're imagining some kind of super coordinated military unit taking control of a powerplant yeah sure maybe? They'd be much better used just poisoning the water supply. This is exactly the kind of baseless fear driven hypothetical sentiment that I'd like to understand. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3072967/ns/business-check_point/t/are-nuclear-plants-safe-attack/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3072967/ns/business-check_point/t/...