3 ms·

Nuclear is one of the least deadly energy sources (taking all deaths, including by nuclear disaster, into account). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM

• e0a74c 5y ago
  Does that take into account the millions of people who'll suffer from birth defects, low fertility, physical deformities and cancers for millennia to come?
  • throwawaylinux 5y ago
    From the nuclear and chemical pollution from burning coal and other fossil fuels? Probably not. Nor the impacts of climate change for millennia to come.
• bayesian_horse 5y ago
  It is also not a widely used energy source. Nor is direct fatality, especially just looking into the past, the only issue. Proponents of nuclear power often don't want you to think about what happens when nuclear power has to be doubled, quadrupled, and so on. Nor are the risks really computable at all, with really small chances of extremely bad things happening. And the potential for bad actors at any time.
  • Tade0 5y ago
    Personally I'm not really worried about the technical side - just the way it's handled. Here's a lesser known minor incident: https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journalists/all-press-releases/edf-s-communication-regarding-the-taishan-nuclear-power-plant-s-no-1-reactor https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journ... Which wouldn't be newsworthy if it wasn't for how it was handled - the local authorities outright refused to even entertain the idea of even temporarily shutting the plant down to check if everything is okay. This incident isn't serious, but I'm afraid that should a serious incident happen, we won't know until it gets out of control.