4 ms·

Amen. Looking at you, Greenpeace.

originalvichy 6y ago
Corner cutters did their part very well too. Nuclear power plant accidents haven’t always happened as a matter of unknown consequences. Some of them have happened due to mismanagement which is inherent in so many parts of life.
- vidarh 6y ago
  We could have a Chernobyl level even every year or two and it'd still kill fewer people than coal. There may well turns out to be safer options in the long term, but in the short term almost anything that shortens the lifetime of coal plants is a good thing, because worldwide coal kills more people every year than the nuclear industry has killed combined in its entire lifetime.
- andbberger 6y ago
  Is it corner cutting? Or is it that nearly all extant nuclear power plants use very early designs with poor safety controls. Imagine how much worse car related fatalities would be if we were all still driving model T's with no crumple zones. (poor example really, because cars are inherently unsafe and nuclear energy is not)
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    >cars are inherently unsafe and nuclear energy is not That's a real doozy of an assertion.
- thecleaner 6y ago
  Random third party audits would with publicly available results would really help with this. Of course both these things could not be done in Soviet Union where highers ups were just incapable of answering questions.
thecleaner 6y ago
Funny thing is in so many college campuses Greenpeace is actually considered a respectable organisation rather than the trolls and bullies that they have been throughout the environmental awareness movement.
esarbe 6y ago
Yeah, to hell with you, Greenpeace, for trying to do good. Serves you right, you little goody two-shoes, for not having all the relevant data to make an informed decision, losers. Then again... Maybe we should rather look at Exxon, BP et al. that already in the 70ies knew perfectly well about the possibility of antropogenic climate change and the danger that this might pose. They could have told Greenpeace. Instead they buried the research and chose to do everything to torpedo any political action. But yeah, let's blame Greenpeace.
- andbberger 6y ago
  Greenpeace is _still_ vehemently anti-nuclear in 2020, and the data has been in for quite some time, so. But yes, Big Oil is also culpable.
  - esarbe 6y ago
    Yes. That's sadly true. It's difficult to change minds and it takes a lot of persistence. Since I also was very strongly anti-nuclear until the late 2010s, I have some idea on how to approach people in this regard, but it . takes . time.

Corner cutters did their part very well too. Nuclear power plant accidents haven’t always happened as a matter of unknown consequences. Some of them have happened due to mismanagement which is inherent in so many parts of life.

vidarh 6y ago
We could have a Chernobyl level even every year or two and it'd still kill fewer people than coal. There may well turns out to be safer options in the long term, but in the short term almost anything that shortens the lifetime of coal plants is a good thing, because worldwide coal kills more people every year than the nuclear industry has killed combined in its entire lifetime.
andbberger 6y ago
Is it corner cutting? Or is it that nearly all extant nuclear power plants use very early designs with poor safety controls. Imagine how much worse car related fatalities would be if we were all still driving model T's with no crumple zones. (poor example really, because cars are inherently unsafe and nuclear energy is not)
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  >cars are inherently unsafe and nuclear energy is not That's a real doozy of an assertion.
thecleaner 6y ago
Random third party audits would with publicly available results would really help with this. Of course both these things could not be done in Soviet Union where highers ups were just incapable of answering questions.

thecleaner 6y ago

Funny thing is in so many college campuses Greenpeace is actually considered a respectable organisation rather than the trolls and bullies that they have been throughout the environmental awareness movement.

esarbe 6y ago

Yeah, to hell with you, Greenpeace, for trying to do good. Serves you right, you little goody two-shoes, for not having all the relevant data to make an informed decision, losers. Then again... Maybe we should rather look at Exxon, BP et al. that already in the 70ies knew perfectly well about the possibility of antropogenic climate change and the danger that this might pose. They could have told Greenpeace. Instead they buried the research and chose to do everything to torpedo any political action. But yeah, let's blame Greenpeace.

andbberger 6y ago
Greenpeace is _still_ vehemently anti-nuclear in 2020, and the data has been in for quite some time, so. But yes, Big Oil is also culpable.
- esarbe 6y ago
  Yes. That's sadly true. It's difficult to change minds and it takes a lot of persistence. Since I also was very strongly anti-nuclear until the late 2010s, I have some idea on how to approach people in this regard, but it . takes . time.