6 ms·

It's not environmentalists who are anti-nuclear; it's everyday people. Many don't want to live near a nuclear power station. [1] Perhaps making multiple cities

It's not environmentalists who are anti-nuclear; it's everyday people. Many don't want to live near a nuclear power station. [1] Perhaps making multiple cities uninhabitable was bad publicity for nuclear power? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/18/australians-support-for-nuclear-plants-rising-but-most-dont-want-to-live-near-one https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/18/austr...

astrange 3y ago
Nearby coal plants are not only worse for you than nuclear plants, they're also more radioactive.
- legulere 3y ago
  Chernobyl alone released around the same order of magnitude of radionuclides as all coal use worldwide.
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    Chernobyl is a special case, with a uniquely terrible design and uniquely terrible management by a uniquely evil regime. No operating civilian reactor has any possibility of failure that catastrophic. But even taking Chernobyl into account, nuclear remains by far one of the safest forms of energy, rivaled only by solar: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
    - legulere 3y ago
      Do you consider Fukushima also not a modern design? Do you then also follow that old reactors should be shut down? (8 reactors of the same type as Chernobyl are still running for instance)
      - ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
        Fukushima power plant started construction in 1967, no one would consider that a modern design. If it was actually possible to build a new nuclear power plant I'm sure the old ones would be replaced. If it wasn't for chernobyl plus three mile island (which released a comically low amount of radiation) maybe the west would have completed its conversion to nuclear instead of essentially pausing all construction for 30 years. But right now the options are essentially shut it down and replace with fossil fuels (wind and solar are not great providers of base loads for obvious reasons) or extend the license.
        legulere 3y ago
        Why should the safety of old reactors depend on new reactors being built? Base load plus peak load is just one way to run electricity production. There is also load following for instance. Germany replaced nuclear with renewables while also reducing both coal and fossil fuel use in general: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutsch...
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
        Well you're clearly pretty anti nuclear, would you allow the construction of a new reactor to replace the old? The answer unfortunately is no, the fear mongering largely won out. And you also seem to have forgotten the thread your in with your last statement.
      - scottLobster 3y ago
        Are you trying to sound uninformed and unworthy of respect? Those 8 reactors were retrofitted to prevent another Chernobyl. Yes not at first due to the corrupt nature of the Soviet Union, but it did occur. Also right now there is exactly 1 confirmed death from exposure to radiation from Fukushima, and a few dozen cases of cancer, radiation burns and injury. Pretty sure coal kills more directly and indirectly in any given month.
    - Jorengarenar 3y ago
      You are really unfair here. The management wasn't terrible at all! That's an insult to actual terrible managements! It was the most bizarre, horrifyingly dump, idiotic, horrible management I can imagine. The safety systems were rising warnings, the person that decided to ignore them and ordered continuation of the test wasn't even on site!
  - bob_theslob646 3y ago
    https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effects-chernobyl-accident.cfm https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effe... How many people died? How many people did annually from people burning coal?How many people develop long term health effects from coal? How many catastrophic failures of nuclear reactors have there been? What about catastrophic failures of other energy sources? Think critically mate.
    - legulere 3y ago
      Is safety only about death? Why are deaths in uranium mining always ignored? How much preventative measures have been and are still being taken throughout Europe because of Chernobyl and how much damage did that do? Why do nuclear proponents only compare with coal, never with renewables?
      - Georgelemental 3y ago
        > deaths in uranium mining Uranium is very energy-dense (https://xkcd.com/1162/ https://xkcd.com/1162/), you don't need to mine a lot of it to get a lot of energy out. So to produce the same amount of energy, there will be far fewer deaths from uranium mining compared to coal mining, or oil drilling, or even (IIRC) rare earth mining to make solar panels. > How much preventative measures have been and are still being taken throughout Europe because of Chernobyl and how much damage did that do? Many preventative measures are reasonable and necessary! This isn't incompatible with nuclear being safe. For example, flying is the safest form of travel, in part because there is strong safety regulation around airplanes. (That being said, a lot of the regulation around nuclear is excessive and counterproductive) > Why do nuclear proponents only compare with coal, never with renewables? The biggest problem with solar and wind is that they are intermittent, so alone they can't support a reliable grid. There are some other issues too (solar takes up a lot of land area, wind turbines kill millions of birds). But all technologies have their tradeoffs; I will support renewables where they make sense, as a component of a reliable grid alongside nuclear. Geothermal is something that doesn't gen enough attention IMO. Currently, it is only viable in a few locations, but potentially with some more R&D it could become a lot more important.
  - scottLobster 3y ago
    And no one is suggesting we build Soviet RBMK reactors. Would you point to the Ford Pinto to claim that we should go back to the horse and buggy?
- kitkat_new 3y ago
  but coal created a lot of jobs for normal people in the area. Dislocated people are paid a lot.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Correct, but that doesn't let the nuclear power industry off the hook. Statistically, they have an adequate record. But there are way too many examples of people denying or covering up nuclear failures only to be subsequently embarrassed by facts. I'm pro-nuclear but reflexive endorsement of the industry is just as embarrassing as reflexive opposition.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  The difference is in the risk profile. The risks of coal power are dominated by the typical case. People have been living near coal plants for generations, they know what the risks mean in the real life, and they have generally found the risks acceptable. Nuclear risks are dominated by rare disasters. Because most people have not experienced nuclear disasters near home, they don't know what it would mean in the real life. As the risks are unfamiliar, many people find them scary.
  - astrange 3y ago
    > People have been living near coal plants for generations, they know what the risks mean in the real life, and they have generally found the risks acceptable. …honestly I'm like 100% sure they don't know what the risks are. Every time anyone does a study on air pollution it turns out the effects are even more horrible than we already thought it was. Like it gives you dementia and cancer.
    - jltsiren 3y ago
      That's why I mentioned "real life". People may not know the specific risks associated with specific causes, but they think they understand the overall risks of living with coal power. After all, they have already lived their lives with coal power, and they have seen many other people do so. If the quality of life has been acceptable, the risks must be acceptable as well, if there are no alternatives that are obviously better. On the other hand, people tend to overestimate unfamiliar risks. If you only hear about nuclear disasters (or earthquakes or hurricanes) in the news, it's easy to assume that the risks are more significant than they actually are.
Georgelemental 3y ago
I would be fine with living right next to a nuclear power station. I have lived near a uranium enrichment factory. Far preferable to living next to a lignite coal plant, that's for sure!
bob_theslob646 3y ago
Can you cite any evidence for what you just said because that may be the most outrageous thing I've ever read of my life. Living in the same city where of nuclear power plant is considered not inhabitable? Or were you making a terrible joke about a nuclear accident?
- lexandstuff 3y ago
  Here's a source from a recent Australian survey: "...asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the statement "I would be comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant", only 28% agreed and 60% disagreed." [1] The part about it being due to uninhabitable cities (referring to Chernobyl, Pripyat and Fukushima) was conjecture - I don't know people's reasons for it. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/18/australians-support-for-nuclear-plants-rising-but-most-dont-want-to-live-near-one https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/18/austr...
  - elif 3y ago
    28% of the total population can provide full occupancy of all the areas near nuclear plants. Those ignorant or willing to live in discomfort will ease the capitalist equalizing that will naturally encourage that 28% to fill those houses.
    - lexandstuff 3y ago
      Fair enough, but the housing prices in the area will take a huge hit while the non-supporters move out. It would be political suicide for a local government to support it.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - int_19h 3y ago
    What happens if you ask, say, the French, who have been living next to their nuclear power plants for decades.
bob_theslob646 3y ago
When you say "many" you cited people in Australia. Does that speak or is that representative, for the entire world? Also, my opinion of Australians is slightly shifted after reading that information, but who knows how they crafted that survey. Did they compare it to living next to a coal-fired plant? I am not able to easily find the survey methodology. Anyhow,the science is abundantly clear that there is no reason to fear living near a nuclear power plant. "In our study, living near an NPP was not associated with any significant risk of hematologic malignancies, except for CLL/SLL, for which risk was significantly reduced."(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31116 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31116) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26638017/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26638017/ https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-risks-safety/radiation/types-sources/living-near-nuclear-power-plant.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-risks...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

astrange 3y ago

Nearby coal plants are not only worse for you than nuclear plants, they're also more radioactive.

legulere 3y ago
Chernobyl alone released around the same order of magnitude of radionuclides as all coal use worldwide.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  Chernobyl is a special case, with a uniquely terrible design and uniquely terrible management by a uniquely evil regime. No operating civilian reactor has any possibility of failure that catastrophic. But even taking Chernobyl into account, nuclear remains by far one of the safest forms of energy, rivaled only by solar: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
  - legulere 3y ago
    Do you consider Fukushima also not a modern design? Do you then also follow that old reactors should be shut down? (8 reactors of the same type as Chernobyl are still running for instance)
    - ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
      Fukushima power plant started construction in 1967, no one would consider that a modern design. If it was actually possible to build a new nuclear power plant I'm sure the old ones would be replaced. If it wasn't for chernobyl plus three mile island (which released a comically low amount of radiation) maybe the west would have completed its conversion to nuclear instead of essentially pausing all construction for 30 years. But right now the options are essentially shut it down and replace with fossil fuels (wind and solar are not great providers of base loads for obvious reasons) or extend the license.
      - legulere 3y ago
        Why should the safety of old reactors depend on new reactors being built? Base load plus peak load is just one way to run electricity production. There is also load following for instance. Germany replaced nuclear with renewables while also reducing both coal and fossil fuel use in general: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutsch...
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
        Well you're clearly pretty anti nuclear, would you allow the construction of a new reactor to replace the old? The answer unfortunately is no, the fear mongering largely won out. And you also seem to have forgotten the thread your in with your last statement.
    - scottLobster 3y ago
      Are you trying to sound uninformed and unworthy of respect? Those 8 reactors were retrofitted to prevent another Chernobyl. Yes not at first due to the corrupt nature of the Soviet Union, but it did occur. Also right now there is exactly 1 confirmed death from exposure to radiation from Fukushima, and a few dozen cases of cancer, radiation burns and injury. Pretty sure coal kills more directly and indirectly in any given month.
  - Jorengarenar 3y ago
    You are really unfair here. The management wasn't terrible at all! That's an insult to actual terrible managements! It was the most bizarre, horrifyingly dump, idiotic, horrible management I can imagine. The safety systems were rising warnings, the person that decided to ignore them and ordered continuation of the test wasn't even on site!
- bob_theslob646 3y ago
  https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effects-chernobyl-accident.cfm https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effe... How many people died? How many people did annually from people burning coal?How many people develop long term health effects from coal? How many catastrophic failures of nuclear reactors have there been? What about catastrophic failures of other energy sources? Think critically mate.
  - legulere 3y ago
    Is safety only about death? Why are deaths in uranium mining always ignored? How much preventative measures have been and are still being taken throughout Europe because of Chernobyl and how much damage did that do? Why do nuclear proponents only compare with coal, never with renewables?
    - Georgelemental 3y ago
      > deaths in uranium mining Uranium is very energy-dense (https://xkcd.com/1162/ https://xkcd.com/1162/), you don't need to mine a lot of it to get a lot of energy out. So to produce the same amount of energy, there will be far fewer deaths from uranium mining compared to coal mining, or oil drilling, or even (IIRC) rare earth mining to make solar panels. > How much preventative measures have been and are still being taken throughout Europe because of Chernobyl and how much damage did that do? Many preventative measures are reasonable and necessary! This isn't incompatible with nuclear being safe. For example, flying is the safest form of travel, in part because there is strong safety regulation around airplanes. (That being said, a lot of the regulation around nuclear is excessive and counterproductive) > Why do nuclear proponents only compare with coal, never with renewables? The biggest problem with solar and wind is that they are intermittent, so alone they can't support a reliable grid. There are some other issues too (solar takes up a lot of land area, wind turbines kill millions of birds). But all technologies have their tradeoffs; I will support renewables where they make sense, as a component of a reliable grid alongside nuclear. Geothermal is something that doesn't gen enough attention IMO. Currently, it is only viable in a few locations, but potentially with some more R&D it could become a lot more important.
- scottLobster 3y ago
  And no one is suggesting we build Soviet RBMK reactors. Would you point to the Ford Pinto to claim that we should go back to the horse and buggy?
kitkat_new 3y ago
but coal created a lot of jobs for normal people in the area. Dislocated people are paid a lot.
anigbrowl 3y ago
Correct, but that doesn't let the nuclear power industry off the hook. Statistically, they have an adequate record. But there are way too many examples of people denying or covering up nuclear failures only to be subsequently embarrassed by facts. I'm pro-nuclear but reflexive endorsement of the industry is just as embarrassing as reflexive opposition.
jltsiren 3y ago
The difference is in the risk profile. The risks of coal power are dominated by the typical case. People have been living near coal plants for generations, they know what the risks mean in the real life, and they have generally found the risks acceptable. Nuclear risks are dominated by rare disasters. Because most people have not experienced nuclear disasters near home, they don't know what it would mean in the real life. As the risks are unfamiliar, many people find them scary.
- astrange 3y ago
  > People have been living near coal plants for generations, they know what the risks mean in the real life, and they have generally found the risks acceptable. …honestly I'm like 100% sure they don't know what the risks are. Every time anyone does a study on air pollution it turns out the effects are even more horrible than we already thought it was. Like it gives you dementia and cancer.
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    That's why I mentioned "real life". People may not know the specific risks associated with specific causes, but they think they understand the overall risks of living with coal power. After all, they have already lived their lives with coal power, and they have seen many other people do so. If the quality of life has been acceptable, the risks must be acceptable as well, if there are no alternatives that are obviously better. On the other hand, people tend to overestimate unfamiliar risks. If you only hear about nuclear disasters (or earthquakes or hurricanes) in the news, it's easy to assume that the risks are more significant than they actually are.

Georgelemental 3y ago

I would be fine with living right next to a nuclear power station. I have lived near a uranium enrichment factory. Far preferable to living next to a lignite coal plant, that's for sure!

bob_theslob646 3y ago

Can you cite any evidence for what you just said because that may be the most outrageous thing I've ever read of my life. Living in the same city where of nuclear power plant is considered not inhabitable? Or were you making a terrible joke about a nuclear accident?

lexandstuff 3y ago
Here's a source from a recent Australian survey: "...asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the statement "I would be comfortable living close to a nuclear power plant", only 28% agreed and 60% disagreed." [1] The part about it being due to uninhabitable cities (referring to Chernobyl, Pripyat and Fukushima) was conjecture - I don't know people's reasons for it. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/18/australians-support-for-nuclear-plants-rising-but-most-dont-want-to-live-near-one https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/18/austr...
- elif 3y ago
  28% of the total population can provide full occupancy of all the areas near nuclear plants. Those ignorant or willing to live in discomfort will ease the capitalist equalizing that will naturally encourage that 28% to fill those houses.
  - lexandstuff 3y ago
    Fair enough, but the housing prices in the area will take a huge hit while the non-supporters move out. It would be political suicide for a local government to support it.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- int_19h 3y ago
  What happens if you ask, say, the French, who have been living next to their nuclear power plants for decades.

bob_theslob646 3y ago

When you say "many" you cited people in Australia. Does that speak or is that representative, for the entire world? Also, my opinion of Australians is slightly shifted after reading that information, but who knows how they crafted that survey. Did they compare it to living next to a coal-fired plant? I am not able to easily find the survey methodology. Anyhow,the science is abundantly clear that there is no reason to fear living near a nuclear power plant. "In our study, living near an NPP was not associated with any significant risk of hematologic malignancies, except for CLL/SLL, for which risk was significantly reduced."(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31116 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31116) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26638017/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26638017/ https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-risks-safety/radiation/types-sources/living-near-nuclear-power-plant.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-risks...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]