3 ms·

>Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan Earthquake caused the Tsunami. >A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor p

>Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan Earthquake caused the Tsunami. >A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you got a puncture in a multi car pileup. "The disaster was the most severe nuclear accident since the 26 April 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the only other disaster to be given the Level 7 event classification of the International Nuclear Event Scale." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

cthalupa 7y ago
Realistically, even Chernobyl is more of an economic issue than a loss of human life one. There were 54 immediate deaths, and they believe that up to ~4000 people will die earlier than they would have otherwise due to cancer and other complications from radiation exposure. This sounds like quite a bit, until you realize that in the US alone 13,000 people die every year from cancer and other complications related to exposure from coal pollution. Chernobyl and Fukshima are tragic, but you cannot examine the fallout (literal and figurative) in a vacuum - you must compare it to where things stand today. Much of the world's energy is produced from sources that are far more harmful in normal operation than either were in worst case failure modes. We have significantly better technology for nuclear now, as well. Wind turbines are bad for birds, and really NEED to be placed outside of migration paths. Photovoltaic panels create tons of toxic waste in manufacturing. Concentrated solar plants are pretty great, where they work. Geothermal is great where it can work. We should be exploring all of these where we can, work on further minimizing the downsides and solving the problems - a diverse energy strategy is a good one. But this demonization and avoidance of modern nuclear reactors is nuts, as it is one of the highest energy production options we have. They could make a huge impact in the goal of being carbon neutral. And they could do so in a way that is quite safe, especially compared to existing coal and LNG plants. I think arguing against nuclear is short-sighted and costs us one of our best tools at fighting climate change today.

cthalupa 7y ago

Realistically, even Chernobyl is more of an economic issue than a loss of human life one. There were 54 immediate deaths, and they believe that up to ~4000 people will die earlier than they would have otherwise due to cancer and other complications from radiation exposure. This sounds like quite a bit, until you realize that in the US alone 13,000 people die every year from cancer and other complications related to exposure from coal pollution. Chernobyl and Fukshima are tragic, but you cannot examine the fallout (literal and figurative) in a vacuum - you must compare it to where things stand today. Much of the world's energy is produced from sources that are far more harmful in normal operation than either were in worst case failure modes. We have significantly better technology for nuclear now, as well. Wind turbines are bad for birds, and really NEED to be placed outside of migration paths. Photovoltaic panels create tons of toxic waste in manufacturing. Concentrated solar plants are pretty great, where they work. Geothermal is great where it can work. We should be exploring all of these where we can, work on further minimizing the downsides and solving the problems - a diverse energy strategy is a good one. But this demonization and avoidance of modern nuclear reactors is nuts, as it is one of the highest energy production options we have. They could make a huge impact in the goal of being carbon neutral. And they could do so in a way that is quite safe, especially compared to existing coal and LNG plants. I think arguing against nuclear is short-sighted and costs us one of our best tools at fighting climate change today.