7 ms·

Yes. But they produces nuclear wast and a melt down could devastate wide regions. Glad that this will all be over soon. I was a victim of the Chernobyl fallout

Yes. But they produces nuclear wast and a melt down could devastate wide regions. Glad that this will all be over soon. I was a victim of the Chernobyl fallout myself, and would not like to experience this again.

varajelle 4y ago
How were you a victim? if I may ask
- Archelaos 4y ago
  I was a teenager at that time in southern Germany. Most disturbing was that news about the radioactive cloud trickled in only days after the disaster and then only very, very gradually. It were the first nice, sunny and warm days of spring, but people went outside only when absolutely necessary, because of this invisible threat. No one knew how much there was to come, where it might hit, and how long it might last[1] or how this might affect one's future health or that of unborn babies, etc., etc. After some very high concentrations were found in specific spots such as air filters month after the disaster,[2] people were afraid of using the ventilations of their cars. I remember that there were reports of some particularly high meassurements in sandpits on children's playgrounds, that unsettled people badly. It is easy to say that on average nuclear energy is not so terrible, when you were never personally confronted with what happens when you lose the bet. Then an abstract idea is becoming very real. You realise that one day someone else will have to pay the price, or you yourself again: What if the next accident happens not in the Soviet Union or Japan, but in one of the power plants next door? This experience, shared by millions of people, has done much to cast doubt on the claims that such risks are technically controllable. And the climate protection argument also appears to many to be nothing more than propaganda, because it comes from the same parties and companies that supported likewise nuclear, coal and gas, but downplayed climat change and other environmental issues for decades. Their actions and lobbying helped to create our current situation by slowing down the switch to renewable energies and postponing stricter regulations on energy saving. -- Shall we trust them now after so many failures? [1] Mushrooms in some areas of southern Germany are still highly contaminated. But that was one of the least of our concerns in those days. [2] I found an old article from Der Spiegel from 1986 reporting 500,000 Bq/m^2 filter: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/dicke-luft-um-verseuchte-filter-a-dc8d3a9d-0002-0001-0000-000013517954 https://www.spiegel.de/politik/dicke-luft-um-verseuchte-filt... (in German)
  - varajelle 4y ago
    But as it turned out, this was just more fear than harm. These radiation turned out to have almost no health consequences in the population. (And 500kBq is not much. The human body is already 5kBq naturally) > What if the next accident happens not in the Soviet Union or Japan, but in one of the power plants next door? That would be terrible. But how does it compare to other terrible events such as the flood of last year, arguably caused by global warming? You were victim of the fear propaganda of the 80's, but people today are victim of the energy crisis in Germany, which is partly caused by the choice to discontinue nuclear.
    - Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
      > These radiation turned out to have almost no health consequences in the population. Thousands died of thyroid cancer but for the population that is easily described as "almost no consequences" due to scale. https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2018/unisous395.html https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2018/unisous395.... The death of a man is a catastrophe. A thousand deaths is a statistic!
      - varajelle 4y ago
        Your source does not support what you claim. > About 20,000 cases of thyroid cancer cases were registered in the period 1991−2015 in males and females, who were under 18 in 1986 for the whole of Belarus and Ukraine, and for the four most contaminated oblasts of the Russian Federation. The Scientific Committee now estimates that one in four of those cases is attributable to radiation exposure. This is not about Germany, but about the area much closer to the power plant. Also thyroid cancer has a 98% survival rate according to Wikipedia. So that would amount to 20000 * 0.25 * 0.02 ≈ 100 death caused by the accident in the most impacted area. Which is a catastrophe, but also not an apocalypse But I was talking about Germany anyway where the most alarmist messages were delivered about the danger on the German population.
    - Archelaos 4y ago
      > You were victim of the fear propaganda of the 80's, The threat was real. It is like saying that after someone put a knife at your throat, that it was nothing, because you are still alive. > but people today are victim of the energy crisis in Germany, which is partly caused by the choice to discontinue nuclear. It depends how you tell the story. It was the choice to discontinue nuclear, but pospone renewables. The companies in the coal and gas energy sector were mostly identical to those in the nuclear energy sector (3 out of 4 large companies). They did not have much of a problem getting out of nuclear energy if they could stay in the coal and gas business or even expand it and pass on the financial risk of their nuclear waste disposal obligations to the taxpayer[1] -- as long as they had not to fear too much competition from renewables. It were the very same people in industry and politics that supported nuclear whenever possible, that supported coal and gas as a replacement and constantly downplayed the impact of climate change. The people from the environmental movement who warned about all this were not politically strong enough to push through a better agenda. That is what has brought us to the current situation. Guess who I trust the most to find the best way out of this situation ... [1] They threatend bankruptcy if not, and got away with a one-time payment of only 24,1 billion Euro.
mabbo 4y ago
Nuclear waste is tiny and contained. It kills no one when handled correctly, which it is. Coal and gas plants produce pollution that kills thousands every year, and that's how it's supposed to work. Meltdowns are next to impossible at correctly designed and built plants, which the German ones are.
- Archelaos 4y ago
  > It kills no one when handled correctly, which it is. This is not true. The German nuclear industry did not even manage to store low and intermediate level radioactive waste even remotely safely. Here is a report from July 2022 about the failure from German public television: https://www.ndr.de/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell-Endlager-Asse-Der-lange-Weg-zur-Raeumung,asse1410.html https://www.ndr.de/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell... The report is only availablöe in German, but you may run the accompanying documentation through the translator of your choice, to learn what happened. > Coal and gas plants produce pollution that kills thousands every year, and that's how it's supposed to work. Wrong alternative. We need 100% renewable. > Meltdowns are next to impossible at correctly designed and built plants, which the German ones are. People like you would have said that about Japan too, before 2011, and actively ignore what happend in Harrisburg in 1979 or Sellafield in 1957.
  - hbgl 4y ago
    So since the 80s it is known that water enters the nuclear waste storage locations and how many people have died? None. Okay but how many people have faced any direct adverse consequences from it? Also none. And that isn't even a proper counter argument because the waste was not handled correctly in this instance.
    - Archelaos 4y ago
      That the waste was not handled correctly is exactly the issue. I agree: Nuclear energy is harmless as long as no accident happens, everything is handled properly and every possibility is taken care of. The problem is only that this is not the case.
panick21_ 4y ago
> Yes. But they produces nuclear wast and a melt down could devastate wide regions Civilian nuclear waste can absolutely not 'devastate wide regions'. And civlian nuclear plants in the waste can also not really do that. What actually can happen is that over a large region you measure slightly higher radiation but not actually enough to be dangerous to the people there. > I was a victim of the Chernobyl fallout myself, and would not like to experience this again. There is no measurable impact of Chernobyl. All the claims about all the disabled children were literally all lies. Its all fear mongering.

varajelle 4y ago

How were you a victim? if I may ask

Archelaos 4y ago
I was a teenager at that time in southern Germany. Most disturbing was that news about the radioactive cloud trickled in only days after the disaster and then only very, very gradually. It were the first nice, sunny and warm days of spring, but people went outside only when absolutely necessary, because of this invisible threat. No one knew how much there was to come, where it might hit, and how long it might last[1] or how this might affect one's future health or that of unborn babies, etc., etc. After some very high concentrations were found in specific spots such as air filters month after the disaster,[2] people were afraid of using the ventilations of their cars. I remember that there were reports of some particularly high meassurements in sandpits on children's playgrounds, that unsettled people badly. It is easy to say that on average nuclear energy is not so terrible, when you were never personally confronted with what happens when you lose the bet. Then an abstract idea is becoming very real. You realise that one day someone else will have to pay the price, or you yourself again: What if the next accident happens not in the Soviet Union or Japan, but in one of the power plants next door? This experience, shared by millions of people, has done much to cast doubt on the claims that such risks are technically controllable. And the climate protection argument also appears to many to be nothing more than propaganda, because it comes from the same parties and companies that supported likewise nuclear, coal and gas, but downplayed climat change and other environmental issues for decades. Their actions and lobbying helped to create our current situation by slowing down the switch to renewable energies and postponing stricter regulations on energy saving. -- Shall we trust them now after so many failures? [1] Mushrooms in some areas of southern Germany are still highly contaminated. But that was one of the least of our concerns in those days. [2] I found an old article from Der Spiegel from 1986 reporting 500,000 Bq/m^2 filter: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/dicke-luft-um-verseuchte-filter-a-dc8d3a9d-0002-0001-0000-000013517954 https://www.spiegel.de/politik/dicke-luft-um-verseuchte-filt... (in German)
- varajelle 4y ago
  But as it turned out, this was just more fear than harm. These radiation turned out to have almost no health consequences in the population. (And 500kBq is not much. The human body is already 5kBq naturally) > What if the next accident happens not in the Soviet Union or Japan, but in one of the power plants next door? That would be terrible. But how does it compare to other terrible events such as the flood of last year, arguably caused by global warming? You were victim of the fear propaganda of the 80's, but people today are victim of the energy crisis in Germany, which is partly caused by the choice to discontinue nuclear.
  - Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
    > These radiation turned out to have almost no health consequences in the population. Thousands died of thyroid cancer but for the population that is easily described as "almost no consequences" due to scale. https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2018/unisous395.html https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2018/unisous395.... The death of a man is a catastrophe. A thousand deaths is a statistic!
    - varajelle 4y ago
      Your source does not support what you claim. > About 20,000 cases of thyroid cancer cases were registered in the period 1991−2015 in males and females, who were under 18 in 1986 for the whole of Belarus and Ukraine, and for the four most contaminated oblasts of the Russian Federation. The Scientific Committee now estimates that one in four of those cases is attributable to radiation exposure. This is not about Germany, but about the area much closer to the power plant. Also thyroid cancer has a 98% survival rate according to Wikipedia. So that would amount to 20000 * 0.25 * 0.02 ≈ 100 death caused by the accident in the most impacted area. Which is a catastrophe, but also not an apocalypse But I was talking about Germany anyway where the most alarmist messages were delivered about the danger on the German population.
  - Archelaos 4y ago
    > You were victim of the fear propaganda of the 80's, The threat was real. It is like saying that after someone put a knife at your throat, that it was nothing, because you are still alive. > but people today are victim of the energy crisis in Germany, which is partly caused by the choice to discontinue nuclear. It depends how you tell the story. It was the choice to discontinue nuclear, but pospone renewables. The companies in the coal and gas energy sector were mostly identical to those in the nuclear energy sector (3 out of 4 large companies). They did not have much of a problem getting out of nuclear energy if they could stay in the coal and gas business or even expand it and pass on the financial risk of their nuclear waste disposal obligations to the taxpayer[1] -- as long as they had not to fear too much competition from renewables. It were the very same people in industry and politics that supported nuclear whenever possible, that supported coal and gas as a replacement and constantly downplayed the impact of climate change. The people from the environmental movement who warned about all this were not politically strong enough to push through a better agenda. That is what has brought us to the current situation. Guess who I trust the most to find the best way out of this situation ... [1] They threatend bankruptcy if not, and got away with a one-time payment of only 24,1 billion Euro.

mabbo 4y ago

Nuclear waste is tiny and contained. It kills no one when handled correctly, which it is. Coal and gas plants produce pollution that kills thousands every year, and that's how it's supposed to work. Meltdowns are next to impossible at correctly designed and built plants, which the German ones are.

Archelaos 4y ago
> It kills no one when handled correctly, which it is. This is not true. The German nuclear industry did not even manage to store low and intermediate level radioactive waste even remotely safely. Here is a report from July 2022 about the failure from German public television: https://www.ndr.de/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell-Endlager-Asse-Der-lange-Weg-zur-Raeumung,asse1410.html https://www.ndr.de/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell... The report is only availablöe in German, but you may run the accompanying documentation through the translator of your choice, to learn what happened. > Coal and gas plants produce pollution that kills thousands every year, and that's how it's supposed to work. Wrong alternative. We need 100% renewable. > Meltdowns are next to impossible at correctly designed and built plants, which the German ones are. People like you would have said that about Japan too, before 2011, and actively ignore what happend in Harrisburg in 1979 or Sellafield in 1957.
- hbgl 4y ago
  So since the 80s it is known that water enters the nuclear waste storage locations and how many people have died? None. Okay but how many people have faced any direct adverse consequences from it? Also none. And that isn't even a proper counter argument because the waste was not handled correctly in this instance.
  - Archelaos 4y ago
    That the waste was not handled correctly is exactly the issue. I agree: Nuclear energy is harmless as long as no accident happens, everything is handled properly and every possibility is taken care of. The problem is only that this is not the case.

panick21_ 4y ago

> Yes. But they produces nuclear wast and a melt down could devastate wide regions Civilian nuclear waste can absolutely not 'devastate wide regions'. And civlian nuclear plants in the waste can also not really do that. What actually can happen is that over a large region you measure slightly higher radiation but not actually enough to be dangerous to the people there. > I was a victim of the Chernobyl fallout myself, and would not like to experience this again. There is no measurable impact of Chernobyl. All the claims about all the disabled children were literally all lies. Its all fear mongering.