3 ms·

Everyone agree that statistics are on the side of nuclear power. The problem is that in the case of a very wrong accident the consequences can be very dire, as

• blacksmith_tb 7y ago
  Half a continent? The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone[1] is 30km in diameter, Fukashima's is 20km I believe[2]. Obviously a nightmare if you happen to live in the neighborhood, but I don't think there are any nuclear power plants big enough to turn even a small country into a "nuclear wasteland". 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone 2: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/oct/11/radioactive-wreckage-inside-fukushimas-nuclear-exclusion-zone-in-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/oct/11...
  • deeg 7y ago
    The sum total of exclusion zones due to nuclear power is tiny when compared to the exclusion zone that will be created by rising sea levels due to global warming.
• shawnz 7y ago
  No, that is not a valid counterargument to the statistical argument of Nuclear's safety. One catastrophic accident is not necessarily worse than many small accidents. In fact that's the whole point behind the argument.
  • afiori 7y ago
    I agree that my comment was ill formed. My point was that when comparing the kind of worst case scenario of nuclear against other energies you get a very different result. In part I am also worried about nuclear power plants in case of war. I understand that there are many advantages on many sides, but in my opinion it is not worth it considering what could happen if thing go very wrong.