4 ms·

3 mile island fucked up big time on American soil, and they didn't exactly come clean during the course of the meltdown as to what local residents were being ex

by bcrl 4y ago

3 mile island fucked up big time on American soil, and they didn't exactly come clean during the course of the meltdown as to what local residents were being exposed to. For profit operators still have incentive to cover up accidents as much or more than anyone else. At least with small modular reactors there is a chance to get the manufacturing costs under control by standardizing designs and production lines. Sadly, humans have an inability to make meaningful comparisons between statistically remote probabilities. Nuclear power will always have an uphill battle convincing the general public that it is safe because its accidents are so horrific and outside of the normal scope of experience of humans (vs coal, which is just fire that everyone has personal experience and understanding of). It may well be that this perception was in part cemented in the mind of humanity by the horror of the use of the first nuclear bombs. Had nuclear power been introduced to the world in a more peaceful fashion without such devastation, perhaps its trajectory in the public eye would have been different.

daniel-cussen 4y ago
Right, so in fact the literal, absolute first nuclear bomb was the Trinity Test, on American soil, and they did a great job of clearing out the area, nobody died in the detonation. And further Feynman for one did his own math and decided to watch the blast from much closer than everyone else, from behind a windshield of his car, as he judged mathematically that that would be enough to mitigate the radiation. So that tells you everyone else was basically very conservative about the effects. Now fire? Personal experience, yes, I have personal experience. But coal fire? Fireblast? Firestorm? What kind of fire? Gunpowder? What is oxidizing, if it is even oxidization, are we calling it fire when it's a fluorine compound reaction? So coal power has much worse smokestacks than nuclear's steam towers, those smokestacks have to be sky-high to lie about the harm they produce. The height of the stacks is the true extent to which the lies are piled higher and deeper. Illustrates the point of the harm, otherwise why use anything, just a bonfire. What is the purpose of a chimney? It's just fire. No big deal if the smoke just stays there, right? Yes there is, you start coughing harder and harder, and if you ignore that, you get worse, if you're trapped you could die. Smoke kills. Generally houses on fire kill with the smoke, not with the heat or flame. And yeah one little cigarette can produce a lot of smoke, enough for people to complain and tell you to put it out, or give you a fine or punish you. So then a ton of carbon, with some amount of phosphorus, uranium, thorium and radium in it? They combine in the combustion in all kinds of ways. 100x more nuclear pollution, from fire, than a nuclear plant. The smoke from a cigarette in fact contains radioactive phosphorus from the fertilizer and radium because of the hair on the tobacco leaves and roots, that's what gives cancer the most. And how many cigarettes can a man smoke in his lifetime? 40 grams per box of cigarette, like 200,000 cigarettes is 10,000 boxes, that's less than a ton of cigarette filling. Not even getting all that smoke, that's enough to kill a man. Plus second hand smoke, and they're morally equivalent to coal.
- petre 4y ago
  > So then a ton of carbon, with some amount of phosphorus, uranium, thorium and radium in it You forgot about mercury and arsenic.

by bcrl 4y ago

daniel-cussen 4y ago

Right, so in fact the literal, absolute first nuclear bomb was the Trinity Test, on American soil, and they did a great job of clearing out the area, nobody died in the detonation. And further Feynman for one did his own math and decided to watch the blast from much closer than everyone else, from behind a windshield of his car, as he judged mathematically that that would be enough to mitigate the radiation. So that tells you everyone else was basically very conservative about the effects. Now fire? Personal experience, yes, I have personal experience. But coal fire? Fireblast? Firestorm? What kind of fire? Gunpowder? What is oxidizing, if it is even oxidization, are we calling it fire when it's a fluorine compound reaction? So coal power has much worse smokestacks than nuclear's steam towers, those smokestacks have to be sky-high to lie about the harm they produce. The height of the stacks is the true extent to which the lies are piled higher and deeper. Illustrates the point of the harm, otherwise why use anything, just a bonfire. What is the purpose of a chimney? It's just fire. No big deal if the smoke just stays there, right? Yes there is, you start coughing harder and harder, and if you ignore that, you get worse, if you're trapped you could die. Smoke kills. Generally houses on fire kill with the smoke, not with the heat or flame. And yeah one little cigarette can produce a lot of smoke, enough for people to complain and tell you to put it out, or give you a fine or punish you. So then a ton of carbon, with some amount of phosphorus, uranium, thorium and radium in it? They combine in the combustion in all kinds of ways. 100x more nuclear pollution, from fire, than a nuclear plant. The smoke from a cigarette in fact contains radioactive phosphorus from the fertilizer and radium because of the hair on the tobacco leaves and roots, that's what gives cancer the most. And how many cigarettes can a man smoke in his lifetime? 40 grams per box of cigarette, like 200,000 cigarettes is 10,000 boxes, that's less than a ton of cigarette filling. Not even getting all that smoke, that's enough to kill a man. Plus second hand smoke, and they're morally equivalent to coal.

petre 4y ago
> So then a ton of carbon, with some amount of phosphorus, uranium, thorium and radium in it You forgot about mercury and arsenic.