4 ms·

Now it sounds like "fossil and biofuel" is only coal. Not quite getting this. We should all be afraid of nuclear power. The risks are uncalculateable. Whoever

Now it sounds like "fossil and biofuel" is only coal. Not quite getting this. We should all be afraid of nuclear power. The risks are uncalculateable. Whoever thinks he can calculate the risks is delusional. It's not just that "impossible" accidents have happened a bit too often in the past. The bigger problem is that Humans are not that predictable and any nuclear waste stored is in danger of getting blown up by some army or warlord in the next few milennia. Same for active power plants, though for a shorter period. Ukraine is having this problem right now. What are the chances that Putin causes an incident with one of their plants? You can never say zero, and the situation is very fluid. For any reasonable estimation of risk, you'd have to assume a couple of decades of peace in your region: No war, civil war or major political upheaval. Some are willing to make that bet. I'm not, for any country.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
Fossil and biofuel are the ones that kill 8M per year. Not just coal. That nice smell of wood burning in the air is pretty deadly, sadly enough. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_2 https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_2
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Death tolls aren't the only impact of a nuclear disaster. Denial of land use for tens to hundreds of years, cleanup costs, mutations, denial of water supplies if it reaches ground water (the prevention of which was one of the things that did work out well at Chernobyl). All with cleanup costs a magnitude higher than those of industrial spills. We're all going to die eventually of something and of those 8M many would have died soon after of other causes. Look at how many people still smoke packets full of hazardous fume sticks on a daily basis. That's how much we care about that risk.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    The difference being that smoking is a personal decision and living near a nuclear power plant isn't. Especially if we were to scale it up to replace fossil fuels. which would mean on the order of ten times as much sites and risk.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    This is a good read. The 'wasteland' thing is a bit of a myth. https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive-wastelands-a-look-at-chernobyls-effects-on-nature/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive...

acidburnNSA 4y ago

Fossil and biofuel are the ones that kill 8M per year. Not just coal. That nice smell of wood burning in the air is pretty deadly, sadly enough. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_2 https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_2

GekkePrutser 4y ago
Death tolls aren't the only impact of a nuclear disaster. Denial of land use for tens to hundreds of years, cleanup costs, mutations, denial of water supplies if it reaches ground water (the prevention of which was one of the things that did work out well at Chernobyl). All with cleanup costs a magnitude higher than those of industrial spills. We're all going to die eventually of something and of those 8M many would have died soon after of other causes. Look at how many people still smoke packets full of hazardous fume sticks on a daily basis. That's how much we care about that risk.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  The difference being that smoking is a personal decision and living near a nuclear power plant isn't. Especially if we were to scale it up to replace fossil fuels. which would mean on the order of ten times as much sites and risk.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  This is a good read. The 'wasteland' thing is a bit of a myth. https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive-wastelands-a-look-at-chernobyls-effects-on-nature/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive...