6 ms·

> I mean Europe has not been this close to a nuclear disaster in more than 30 years and people arguing we should build more nuclear plants? If you consider the

> I mean Europe has not been this close to a nuclear disaster in more than 30 years and people arguing we should build more nuclear plants? If you consider the climate and consequent human life costs of fossil energy sources, the risk of a nuclear disaster does not look very scary. The Fukushima tsunami killed some 4000 people together with the power plant failure [0], while the heatwave in Germany killed 8000 this year [1]. I did not look at air pollution deaths. It's reasonable to choose lesser evil. [0] http://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en03-01.html http://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en03-01.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_European_heat_wave#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_European_heat_wave#German...

ben_w 4y ago
Situational danger. Fukushima was more spectacular than it was lethal; but neither it nor Chernobyl were in literal (albeit undeclared) war zones during their accidents. I'm not sure how much that might change any given conclusion, but I am sure it changes the calculation.
AnonCoward42 4y ago
> If you consider the climate and consequent human life costs of fossil energy sources, the risk of a nuclear disaster does not look very scary. The risks of these are not connected, but add up. It's also a bit weird that people are so sure we can reverse the climate change, while forgetting that we can definitely reduce radioactive emission, but see it as a good trade to have more radioactive pollution.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Radioactive pollution turns out to be a much lesser danger to the environment than CO2 (in the long term). The Chernobyl exclusion zone is currently a haven of biodiversity, while the world overall is going through the largest mass extinction event probably since the dinosaur meteor.
  - AnonCoward42 4y ago
    > The Chernobyl exclusion zone is currently a haven of biodiversity, while the world overall is going through the largest mass extinction event probably since the dinosaur meteor. Are you aware that climate change is not a local thing? Therefore you contradict yourself in the same sentence.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      I don't understand what you mean. My point was that the worse ever nuclear power plant accident has hurt the planet far less than man-made global warming. So, if (taking this to an absurd extreme) we went hard on nuclear and there was a Chernobyl every, say, 20 years - but we got rid of all fossil fuel electricity and heating plants - the planet would probably overall be in better shape.
kergonath 4y ago
> The Fukushima tsunami killed some 4000 people together with the power plant failure [0] About 5 of these deaths can be attributed more or less directly to radiation. All the others being linked to the earthquake, tsunami, and stress following the mass-scale evacuation.

ben_w 4y ago

Situational danger. Fukushima was more spectacular than it was lethal; but neither it nor Chernobyl were in literal (albeit undeclared) war zones during their accidents. I'm not sure how much that might change any given conclusion, but I am sure it changes the calculation.

AnonCoward42 4y ago

> If you consider the climate and consequent human life costs of fossil energy sources, the risk of a nuclear disaster does not look very scary. The risks of these are not connected, but add up. It's also a bit weird that people are so sure we can reverse the climate change, while forgetting that we can definitely reduce radioactive emission, but see it as a good trade to have more radioactive pollution.

tsimionescu 4y ago
Radioactive pollution turns out to be a much lesser danger to the environment than CO2 (in the long term). The Chernobyl exclusion zone is currently a haven of biodiversity, while the world overall is going through the largest mass extinction event probably since the dinosaur meteor.
- AnonCoward42 4y ago
  > The Chernobyl exclusion zone is currently a haven of biodiversity, while the world overall is going through the largest mass extinction event probably since the dinosaur meteor. Are you aware that climate change is not a local thing? Therefore you contradict yourself in the same sentence.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    I don't understand what you mean. My point was that the worse ever nuclear power plant accident has hurt the planet far less than man-made global warming. So, if (taking this to an absurd extreme) we went hard on nuclear and there was a Chernobyl every, say, 20 years - but we got rid of all fossil fuel electricity and heating plants - the planet would probably overall be in better shape.

kergonath 4y ago

> The Fukushima tsunami killed some 4000 people together with the power plant failure [0] About 5 of these deaths can be attributed more or less directly to radiation. All the others being linked to the earthquake, tsunami, and stress following the mass-scale evacuation.