4 ms·

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.
    - natmaka 3y ago
      2,202 deaths from evacuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
      - Ekaros 3y ago
        And how many of those people would have been evacuated anyway for well the tsunami damage?
        natmaka 3y ago
        Please read the article and its sources: those deaths are attributed to the sole part of the evacuation related to the nuclear accident. The tsunami caused ~20000 deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_an...
        ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
        >As of 27 February 2017, the Fukushima prefecture government counted 2,129 "disaster-related deaths" in the prefecture.[21][19][22][23] This value exceeds the number that have died in Fukushima prefecture directly from the earthquake and tsunami.[24] "Disaster-related deaths" are deaths attributed to disasters and are not caused by direct physical trauma, but does not distinguish between people displaced by the nuclear disaster compared to the earthquake / tsunami. As of year 2016, among those deaths, 1,368 have been listed as "related to the nuclear power plant" according to media analysis Looks like that 2xxx number is disaster-related deaths? And the related to the nuclear power plant is 1368. It is a bit confusing what that exactly entails. It seems to include people who committed suicide due to the evacuation, but surely their can't have been 1300 suicides. Is it people who are assumed to have died only because they weren't at home? How do you die due to an evacuation anyways? None of this really seems explained, unless it really is 1300 suicides.
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    The state of the art has improved since Fukushima was built. But it's not even in the same universe as Chernobyl, and reactors of that age shouldn't all be shut down, no. Only one person died from radiation from the Fukushima accident, a tiny fraction of the total deaths from the tsunami. It's an insignificant risk compared to other forms of energy.
- 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?

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.
  - natmaka 3y ago
    2,202 deaths from evacuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      And how many of those people would have been evacuated anyway for well the tsunami damage?
      - natmaka 3y ago
        Please read the article and its sources: those deaths are attributed to the sole part of the evacuation related to the nuclear accident. The tsunami caused ~20000 deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_an...
        ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
        >As of 27 February 2017, the Fukushima prefecture government counted 2,129 "disaster-related deaths" in the prefecture.[21][19][22][23] This value exceeds the number that have died in Fukushima prefecture directly from the earthquake and tsunami.[24] "Disaster-related deaths" are deaths attributed to disasters and are not caused by direct physical trauma, but does not distinguish between people displaced by the nuclear disaster compared to the earthquake / tsunami. As of year 2016, among those deaths, 1,368 have been listed as "related to the nuclear power plant" according to media analysis Looks like that 2xxx number is disaster-related deaths? And the related to the nuclear power plant is 1368. It is a bit confusing what that exactly entails. It seems to include people who committed suicide due to the evacuation, but surely their can't have been 1300 suicides. Is it people who are assumed to have died only because they weren't at home? How do you die due to an evacuation anyways? None of this really seems explained, unless it really is 1300 suicides.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  The state of the art has improved since Fukushima was built. But it's not even in the same universe as Chernobyl, and reactors of that age shouldn't all be shut down, no. Only one person died from radiation from the Fukushima accident, a tiny fraction of the total deaths from the tsunami. It's an insignificant risk compared to other forms of energy.
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?