4 ms·

Climate change was a known fact as far back as the early 80s. Chernobyl happened in 1986. The fear-mongering was absolutely not justified given that we will so

Climate change was a known fact as far back as the early 80s. Chernobyl happened in 1986. The fear-mongering was absolutely not justified given that we will soon be facing climate crises that will make Chernobyl and Fukushima seem miniscule. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...

cogman10 5y ago
Already has. Way more people are dead because of climate change than have died due to nuclear accidents. We are in an ongoing climate crises, it's just normalized now because that's what we are used to. I'm old enough to remember when Cat 5 hurricanes were something like once a decade. Now we see them nearly yearly, sometimes twice in a year. Unfortunately, that's simply not going to stop in our lifetime. It's even likely to get worse over the next 50 years as we slowly get to the point of being carbon neutral.
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  There is no crisis. Death rates from severe weather gets lower and lower every decade, as does economic damage, relative to wealth. This trend will continue as long as we don’t gank the economy. Allegedly, it’s saved lives: https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-heat-cold-deaths-medical-journal-health-risk-energy-cost-fossil-fuels-11631741045 https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-heat-cold-deaths... So far, anyway.
- lenkite 5y ago
  There was an eight year absence of cat 5 hurricanes from 2008 thru 2015. Officially, the decade with the most Category 5 hurricanes is 2000–2009, with eight Category 5 hurricanes having occurred: Isabel (2003), Ivan (2004), Emily (2005), Katrina (2005), Rita (2005), Wilma (2005), Dean (2007), and Felix (2007).
nuerow 5y ago
> The fear-mongering was absolutely not justified given that we will soon be facing climate crises that will make Chernobyl and Fukushima seem miniscule. But isn't "either Nuclear or climate disaster" a false dillema? I mean, Germany right now has about half it's power being generated from renewable energy sources, and wind alone provides over twice the energy that nuclear does. Why do nuclear power proponents insist in pushing the false idea that's either Nuclear or nothing?
- eldaisfish 5y ago
  the solution is whatever we have that works today. That is currently nuclear, hydro plus newer technologies. Rejecting one of those - the most critical component in my opinion - due to decades of fear mongering is actively making the problem worse. You have framed the problem as a binary choice which it is not. Only around 40% of Germany electrical energy comes from renewable resources - roughly the same as coal and natural gas.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > the solution is whatever we have that works today. As Germany showed the world, renewables are quite capable of doing the heavy lifting regarding a nation's energy needs, particularly while phasing out nuclear. The Fukushima disaster is still fresh in our collective memory, as is the exclusion zone around the plant that is comprised of a 20km radius around the Fukushima plant. It's disingenuous to depict nuclear as a desirable option, of even an acceptable onr, given it's track record and very long-lasting consequences.
- dkarl 5y ago
  > either Nuclear or nothing I've never heard that. More like everything that can help fill the gap, including nuclear. > isn't "either Nuclear or climate disaster" a false dillema? That's a false dilemma you've brought from somewhere else, not from this discussion, but the reason "either nuclear or climate disaster" is nonsensical is because global warming is happening already. The extent to which it happens will depend on how fast we can reduce our carbon emissions. If adding nuclear power into the mix helps us act faster and decrease the amount of warming that we ultimately experience, then we have to weigh that benefit against the risks. There's a taboo against weighing nuclear risk against any other kind of risk, but that is a relic of a different time when nuclear accidents were the worst thing we could imagine. Nuclear isn't the scariest monster under the bed anymore. Global warming is going to result in global human suffering on a grand scale. We have to compare.
dkarl 5y ago
Environmental activism against nuclear energy was focused on the risk of Chernobyl-style accidents long before Chernobyl. Chernobyl vindicated anti-nuclear activists in a long-running argument about whether governments could be trusted to safely manage nuclear power. I was a kid in the 1980s, so I might not be remembering with perfect accuracy, but I remember hearing about global warming as a high-profile environmental issue sometime later, maybe the late 80s. Before then the environmental concerns you read about in newspapers and popular magazines were acid rain, nuclear contamination, nuclear winter (still in the Cold War), chemical pollution, deforestation, etc. Global warming might have been on scientists' radar screens, but it didn't hit the public consciousness until after the public had made up its mind about nuclear power.

cogman10 5y ago

Already has. Way more people are dead because of climate change than have died due to nuclear accidents. We are in an ongoing climate crises, it's just normalized now because that's what we are used to. I'm old enough to remember when Cat 5 hurricanes were something like once a decade. Now we see them nearly yearly, sometimes twice in a year. Unfortunately, that's simply not going to stop in our lifetime. It's even likely to get worse over the next 50 years as we slowly get to the point of being carbon neutral.

CheezeIt 5y ago
There is no crisis. Death rates from severe weather gets lower and lower every decade, as does economic damage, relative to wealth. This trend will continue as long as we don’t gank the economy. Allegedly, it’s saved lives: https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-heat-cold-deaths-medical-journal-health-risk-energy-cost-fossil-fuels-11631741045 https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-heat-cold-deaths... So far, anyway.
lenkite 5y ago
There was an eight year absence of cat 5 hurricanes from 2008 thru 2015. Officially, the decade with the most Category 5 hurricanes is 2000–2009, with eight Category 5 hurricanes having occurred: Isabel (2003), Ivan (2004), Emily (2005), Katrina (2005), Rita (2005), Wilma (2005), Dean (2007), and Felix (2007).

nuerow 5y ago

> The fear-mongering was absolutely not justified given that we will soon be facing climate crises that will make Chernobyl and Fukushima seem miniscule. But isn't "either Nuclear or climate disaster" a false dillema? I mean, Germany right now has about half it's power being generated from renewable energy sources, and wind alone provides over twice the energy that nuclear does. Why do nuclear power proponents insist in pushing the false idea that's either Nuclear or nothing?

eldaisfish 5y ago
the solution is whatever we have that works today. That is currently nuclear, hydro plus newer technologies. Rejecting one of those - the most critical component in my opinion - due to decades of fear mongering is actively making the problem worse. You have framed the problem as a binary choice which it is not. Only around 40% of Germany electrical energy comes from renewable resources - roughly the same as coal and natural gas.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > the solution is whatever we have that works today. As Germany showed the world, renewables are quite capable of doing the heavy lifting regarding a nation's energy needs, particularly while phasing out nuclear. The Fukushima disaster is still fresh in our collective memory, as is the exclusion zone around the plant that is comprised of a 20km radius around the Fukushima plant. It's disingenuous to depict nuclear as a desirable option, of even an acceptable onr, given it's track record and very long-lasting consequences.
dkarl 5y ago
> either Nuclear or nothing I've never heard that. More like everything that can help fill the gap, including nuclear. > isn't "either Nuclear or climate disaster" a false dillema? That's a false dilemma you've brought from somewhere else, not from this discussion, but the reason "either nuclear or climate disaster" is nonsensical is because global warming is happening already. The extent to which it happens will depend on how fast we can reduce our carbon emissions. If adding nuclear power into the mix helps us act faster and decrease the amount of warming that we ultimately experience, then we have to weigh that benefit against the risks. There's a taboo against weighing nuclear risk against any other kind of risk, but that is a relic of a different time when nuclear accidents were the worst thing we could imagine. Nuclear isn't the scariest monster under the bed anymore. Global warming is going to result in global human suffering on a grand scale. We have to compare.

dkarl 5y ago

Environmental activism against nuclear energy was focused on the risk of Chernobyl-style accidents long before Chernobyl. Chernobyl vindicated anti-nuclear activists in a long-running argument about whether governments could be trusted to safely manage nuclear power. I was a kid in the 1980s, so I might not be remembering with perfect accuracy, but I remember hearing about global warming as a high-profile environmental issue sometime later, maybe the late 80s. Before then the environmental concerns you read about in newspapers and popular magazines were acid rain, nuclear contamination, nuclear winter (still in the Cold War), chemical pollution, deforestation, etc. Global warming might have been on scientists' radar screens, but it didn't hit the public consciousness until after the public had made up its mind about nuclear power.