3 ms·

I don't necessarily agree with this comment, but I do agree that it's sad this is getting downvotes. The comment is thoughtful and I learned something from it.

I don't necessarily agree with this comment, but I do agree that it's sad this is getting downvotes. The comment is thoughtful and I learned something from it. I support building more reactors but I don't support reflexively shouting down commenters which take the opposite stance.

thrown_22 4y ago
I support _every_ method of power generation getting this treatment. But it's only nuclear that's held to this standard. No other source routinely has all deaths in the life cycle from ground to ground counted as part of a piece that's essentially a press release. Imagine if we had a solar article that started with: >While promising the new solar cell tech does nothing to address the ever increasing number of deaths associated with roof top solar, which has surpassed Chernobyl as of 2015. You'd call that article a coal industry hit job. Yet this is exactly what the OP's article does.
- drran 4y ago
  The difference is that installation of solar panels without adhering to industry safety standards affects the individual, which makes the decision and profits from it, only. In case of nuclear and coal, consequences are shifted from the individuals, which make decisions and profits from them, to completely innocent people. It's written in clear text about this responsibility shifting in the comment, but you continue to do that responsibility shifting. I'm affected by Chornobyl, my parents are affected by Choronobyl, my brothers are affected by Chornobyl, my children are affected by Chornobyl, while we have zero profit from nuclear energy, and nobody asked our consent when the nuclear station was constructed. Moreover, our then government (Moscow) tried to hide all facts about tragedy, while our current government postponing research about cancer induced by Chornobyl radioactive pollution, so people like you can continue to claim that only few people killed by Chornobyl while thousands die every year due to increased levels of cancer.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    The difference is that the costs of solar are hidden behind flowery language. Until people become honest that solar without batteries is impossible and we don't have the technology to store a days worth of energy then any comparison is misleading at best and a disaster at worst. Germany is looking at a winter where people may well freeze to death if Putin decides they should. Nuclear might sound bad when you know all the details about it. Renewables are just propaganda until their downsides are aired just as publicly. We don't live in a world where we get everything we want. Nuclear accidents are the only way we can have a first world life style with current technology without killing billions in 30 years from climate change. The longer we keep lying about this the more people will die.

thrown_22 4y ago

I support _every_ method of power generation getting this treatment. But it's only nuclear that's held to this standard. No other source routinely has all deaths in the life cycle from ground to ground counted as part of a piece that's essentially a press release. Imagine if we had a solar article that started with: >While promising the new solar cell tech does nothing to address the ever increasing number of deaths associated with roof top solar, which has surpassed Chernobyl as of 2015. You'd call that article a coal industry hit job. Yet this is exactly what the OP's article does.

drran 4y ago
The difference is that installation of solar panels without adhering to industry safety standards affects the individual, which makes the decision and profits from it, only. In case of nuclear and coal, consequences are shifted from the individuals, which make decisions and profits from them, to completely innocent people. It's written in clear text about this responsibility shifting in the comment, but you continue to do that responsibility shifting. I'm affected by Chornobyl, my parents are affected by Choronobyl, my brothers are affected by Chornobyl, my children are affected by Chornobyl, while we have zero profit from nuclear energy, and nobody asked our consent when the nuclear station was constructed. Moreover, our then government (Moscow) tried to hide all facts about tragedy, while our current government postponing research about cancer induced by Chornobyl radioactive pollution, so people like you can continue to claim that only few people killed by Chornobyl while thousands die every year due to increased levels of cancer.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  The difference is that the costs of solar are hidden behind flowery language. Until people become honest that solar without batteries is impossible and we don't have the technology to store a days worth of energy then any comparison is misleading at best and a disaster at worst. Germany is looking at a winter where people may well freeze to death if Putin decides they should. Nuclear might sound bad when you know all the details about it. Renewables are just propaganda until their downsides are aired just as publicly. We don't live in a world where we get everything we want. Nuclear accidents are the only way we can have a first world life style with current technology without killing billions in 30 years from climate change. The longer we keep lying about this the more people will die.