3 ms·

And those accidents didn’t cost any money at all, and if they did, all costs were carried by the owners of the plants. And you believe the fantasy that the onl

by Ma8ee 7y ago

And those accidents didn’t cost any money at all, and if they did, all costs were carried by the owners of the plants. And you believe the fantasy that the only deaths caused by Chernobyl was the firefighters and a few people working at the plant. And as usual, you ignore the question of the waste. And there are other alternatives than coal, which are much more economical than nuclear when each producer carries their own costs, including environmental and insurances. I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with me about nuclear, but I do have a problem who are so narrow minded and lazy that they group everyone that have different ideas than themselves together.

option 7y ago
LOL, I actually grew up near Chernobyl and my parents STILL work on CHNPP. So I do know a thing or two about the tragedy. One thing for sure is that it is very speculative to assume pretty much any death toll rather then immediate deaths by liquidators right after the tragedy (<100). I am not sure that cancer rates in Chernobyl are greater than average or, especially, near the vicinity of coal/gas plant. And if you really have a degree in physics you should know that nuclear waste is a very manageable problem. Finally nobody advocates about building more ChNPP style reactors - there are plenty extremely safe alternatives. France is a good example on this
- Ma8ee 7y ago
  Just because it’s very hard to estimate the exact excess deaths or cancers doesn’t mean there aren’t any. There are estimates from 4000 up to near a million early deaths, with the lower probably more reliable, but that is far from none or a few. Ukraine are still spending about 6% of its budget on costs related to the accident. And it is just pure bullshit that nuclear waste is manageable. Or tell me why there’s still no long term storage facility open anywhere in the world. It’s not that they haven’t spent decades trying. The only way waste management isn’t a problem is if you just say it is someone else’s, ie, future generations problem, or if you rely on reprocessing that still won’t reduce all waste, or also seems to be hard to find economy in.

by Ma8ee 7y ago

option 7y ago

LOL, I actually grew up near Chernobyl and my parents STILL work on CHNPP. So I do know a thing or two about the tragedy. One thing for sure is that it is very speculative to assume pretty much any death toll rather then immediate deaths by liquidators right after the tragedy (<100). I am not sure that cancer rates in Chernobyl are greater than average or, especially, near the vicinity of coal/gas plant. And if you really have a degree in physics you should know that nuclear waste is a very manageable problem. Finally nobody advocates about building more ChNPP style reactors - there are plenty extremely safe alternatives. France is a good example on this

Ma8ee 7y ago
Just because it’s very hard to estimate the exact excess deaths or cancers doesn’t mean there aren’t any. There are estimates from 4000 up to near a million early deaths, with the lower probably more reliable, but that is far from none or a few. Ukraine are still spending about 6% of its budget on costs related to the accident. And it is just pure bullshit that nuclear waste is manageable. Or tell me why there’s still no long term storage facility open anywhere in the world. It’s not that they haven’t spent decades trying. The only way waste management isn’t a problem is if you just say it is someone else’s, ie, future generations problem, or if you rely on reprocessing that still won’t reduce all waste, or also seems to be hard to find economy in.