3 ms·

You’re really stretching the meaning of uninhabitable huh? It’s funny when people start changing the definition of words to hold on their viewpoint. The fact i

You’re really stretching the meaning of uninhabitable huh? It’s funny when people start changing the definition of words to hold on their viewpoint. The fact is all nuclear plants are in a state of meltdown without active management, passive safeguards only last so long per plant. Most of the world’s population and countries are not at a technological level to operate a nuclear plant safely and responsibly. The world is already filled with enough shoddy nuclear plants. So replacing fossil fuel with nuclear at this time is a no-go, sorry.

belorn 5y ago
In the US, would you volunteer to live in an area with 59% higher risk of lung cancer if you are male or 85% higher risk if you are female? Are you willing to have family members or relatives living in such areas? This is the average result of people living around coal power plants. If you are unlucky enough to live near coal ash waste ponds, then there is as much as a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer from drinking water contaminated by arsenic. It is estimated that over a million people die as a result of coal power plants. Chernobyl, the world worst nuclear accident, killed an estimated amount of 25,000 to 50,000 people through cancer. That is less than 5% of the total amount of people who die of lung cancer caused by coal ash. 5%! While I have not seen people compare it, it is possible that it is actually safer to have been living next to a nuclear accident than living next coal ash waste bond. That is my definition for uninhabitable. What is yours?
- trixie_ 5y ago
  Pro tip: If your post asks if I would live somewhere that lots of people already live, that’s a clue the place is habitable. Maybe not to your standards, but you don’t define words. Really blows my mind you’re confusing something like a ‘no entry zone’ where people had to abandon their homes with areas near a coal plant.
  - belorn 5y ago
    It is true that a lot of people don't seem to care if millions of poor people die, but will go to great length for a rare occurrence that doesn't kill a lot of people. That may just be how our culture works, but we should strive to do be better than that. Humans are flawed when it comes to understanding risk but we have science as a tool to fight it. I understand why people do not want to recognize the harm of fossil fuels. It is cheap and it enable (some) people to live a richer life. It doesn't make it any less toxic. Isn't saving lives the important thing here?
    - trixie_ 5y ago
      You’ve got to pick your battles. We live in a chemical world, there are few places you can go to avoid breathing or ingesting ‘something’ that will cause cancer down the line. I like nuclear and the potential is there to do it safely - pebble, molten salt, thorium, etc.. the problem is they stopped innovating and left off with risky boiling water reactors which over a lifetime are failure prone without impeccable maintenance. Develop fail safe technology and then go for it. Only first world countries have to know how to really operate these things today and a country’s status isn’t guaranteed over the long term either.
      - belorn 5y ago
        If we have a choice between a safer technology and a more toxic and deadlier technology, why should we pick our battle and continue to use the more deadlier? It is more dangerous to live near a coal plant than a nuclear plant. That people perceive the risk to be the opposite is a problem of perception. It may be surprising but I don't directly like nuclear. If there exist a non-fossil fuel solution that is safer or cheaper than we should use that. My interest is strictly against the continuation of fossil fuels, especially when there exist safer alternatives today. Countries that are rich and stable should not be burning toxic chemicals for heat and energy, and yet all of them still do just to save a bit of money or to avoid upsetting voters. Burn fossil fuels for heat and electricity, and lets be scared of all that spooky nuclear. This has been the dominant culture in energy politics for almost all of Europe, and it is only in very recent time that the wind might start to change. Before safe technologies can be invented, the first step is to address that culture. Even if nuclear was made perfect safe with no failure points, as long people still choose a more deadly source for energy then it won't make a difference.

belorn 5y ago

In the US, would you volunteer to live in an area with 59% higher risk of lung cancer if you are male or 85% higher risk if you are female? Are you willing to have family members or relatives living in such areas? This is the average result of people living around coal power plants. If you are unlucky enough to live near coal ash waste ponds, then there is as much as a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer from drinking water contaminated by arsenic. It is estimated that over a million people die as a result of coal power plants. Chernobyl, the world worst nuclear accident, killed an estimated amount of 25,000 to 50,000 people through cancer. That is less than 5% of the total amount of people who die of lung cancer caused by coal ash. 5%! While I have not seen people compare it, it is possible that it is actually safer to have been living next to a nuclear accident than living next coal ash waste bond. That is my definition for uninhabitable. What is yours?

trixie_ 5y ago
Pro tip: If your post asks if I would live somewhere that lots of people already live, that’s a clue the place is habitable. Maybe not to your standards, but you don’t define words. Really blows my mind you’re confusing something like a ‘no entry zone’ where people had to abandon their homes with areas near a coal plant.
- belorn 5y ago
  It is true that a lot of people don't seem to care if millions of poor people die, but will go to great length for a rare occurrence that doesn't kill a lot of people. That may just be how our culture works, but we should strive to do be better than that. Humans are flawed when it comes to understanding risk but we have science as a tool to fight it. I understand why people do not want to recognize the harm of fossil fuels. It is cheap and it enable (some) people to live a richer life. It doesn't make it any less toxic. Isn't saving lives the important thing here?
  - trixie_ 5y ago
    You’ve got to pick your battles. We live in a chemical world, there are few places you can go to avoid breathing or ingesting ‘something’ that will cause cancer down the line. I like nuclear and the potential is there to do it safely - pebble, molten salt, thorium, etc.. the problem is they stopped innovating and left off with risky boiling water reactors which over a lifetime are failure prone without impeccable maintenance. Develop fail safe technology and then go for it. Only first world countries have to know how to really operate these things today and a country’s status isn’t guaranteed over the long term either.
    - belorn 5y ago
      If we have a choice between a safer technology and a more toxic and deadlier technology, why should we pick our battle and continue to use the more deadlier? It is more dangerous to live near a coal plant than a nuclear plant. That people perceive the risk to be the opposite is a problem of perception. It may be surprising but I don't directly like nuclear. If there exist a non-fossil fuel solution that is safer or cheaper than we should use that. My interest is strictly against the continuation of fossil fuels, especially when there exist safer alternatives today. Countries that are rich and stable should not be burning toxic chemicals for heat and energy, and yet all of them still do just to save a bit of money or to avoid upsetting voters. Burn fossil fuels for heat and electricity, and lets be scared of all that spooky nuclear. This has been the dominant culture in energy politics for almost all of Europe, and it is only in very recent time that the wind might start to change. Before safe technologies can be invented, the first step is to address that culture. Even if nuclear was made perfect safe with no failure points, as long people still choose a more deadly source for energy then it won't make a difference.