3 ms·

It's the safest energy, even safer than solar or wind Source: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-hour-by.html https://www.nextb

by xroche 5y ago

It's the safest energy, even safer than solar or wind Source: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-hour-by.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-te...

shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago
Sure, but that's sort of absurdly missing the point. 0.04 deaths per TWH of nuclear vs 0.01 deaths per TWH of solar in 2012! Am I seriously supposed to ignore the fact that nuclear metldowns have the potential to kill millions of people — because they didn't in 2012? Edit: sorry that sounded mean.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  > Am I seriously supposed to ignore the fact that nuclear metldowns have the potential to kill millions of people — because they didn't in 2012? Can you elaborate on how meltdowns are supposed to be able to kill millions of people? We've already experienced the worst-case scenario in a nuclear catastrophe: Chernobyl. I'm not exaggerating when I say this was a worse-case scenario: A complete reactor containment failure with no secondary containment. Burning fuel rods were directly exposed to the atmosphere for days. In the end this directly killed 50 people. A few thousand were estimated to eventually die from cancer related to the incident. But to date only 60 people are known to have died due to radiation exposure from Chernobyl. So yeah I think you're several orders of magnitude off in your risk assessment of nuclear power.
  - shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago
    By giving a city radiation poisoning. > A few thousand were estimated to eventually die from cancer related to the incident. How many people could conceivably be downwind of a nuclear meltdown? I think it could be much much more than that. I can't imagine why we would not include the people who eventually die of cancer. That's just meltdowns. Given that you can also use nuclear material to create weapons, I'd also point you toward Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples. The point I was making in my original comment, is that it's only safe when the systems are in place to keep it safe. Which is not something you can guarantee.
    - Manuel_D 5y ago
      > > A few thousand were estimated to eventually die from cancer related to the incident. > How many people could conceivably be downwind of a nuclear meltdown? I think it could be much much more than that. I can't imagine why we would not include the people who eventually die of cancer. The several thousand figure does include the people who are predicted to eventually die from cancer. Only 31 people died as a direct consequence of the meltdown.

by xroche 5y ago

shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago

Sure, but that's sort of absurdly missing the point. 0.04 deaths per TWH of nuclear vs 0.01 deaths per TWH of solar in 2012! Am I seriously supposed to ignore the fact that nuclear metldowns have the potential to kill millions of people — because they didn't in 2012? Edit: sorry that sounded mean.

Manuel_D 5y ago
> Am I seriously supposed to ignore the fact that nuclear metldowns have the potential to kill millions of people — because they didn't in 2012? Can you elaborate on how meltdowns are supposed to be able to kill millions of people? We've already experienced the worst-case scenario in a nuclear catastrophe: Chernobyl. I'm not exaggerating when I say this was a worse-case scenario: A complete reactor containment failure with no secondary containment. Burning fuel rods were directly exposed to the atmosphere for days. In the end this directly killed 50 people. A few thousand were estimated to eventually die from cancer related to the incident. But to date only 60 people are known to have died due to radiation exposure from Chernobyl. So yeah I think you're several orders of magnitude off in your risk assessment of nuclear power.
- shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago
  By giving a city radiation poisoning. > A few thousand were estimated to eventually die from cancer related to the incident. How many people could conceivably be downwind of a nuclear meltdown? I think it could be much much more than that. I can't imagine why we would not include the people who eventually die of cancer. That's just meltdowns. Given that you can also use nuclear material to create weapons, I'd also point you toward Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples. The point I was making in my original comment, is that it's only safe when the systems are in place to keep it safe. Which is not something you can guarantee.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    > > A few thousand were estimated to eventually die from cancer related to the incident. > How many people could conceivably be downwind of a nuclear meltdown? I think it could be much much more than that. I can't imagine why we would not include the people who eventually die of cancer. The several thousand figure does include the people who are predicted to eventually die from cancer. Only 31 people died as a direct consequence of the meltdown.