4 ms·

Chernobyl was a very special case. The reactor had no containment vessel -- we don't build that kind of reactors anymore (and the "old French reactors" do have

Chernobyl was a very special case. The reactor had no containment vessel -- we don't build that kind of reactors anymore (and the "old French reactors" do have containment vessels). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building Your "results of radiation throughout generations" line doesn't really make sense. Don't go into the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. That's it. You don't get much radiation from other nuclear power plants and certainly not "throughout generations". You do from radon gas in the basement in some parts of the world, you do from coal smoke (a tiny bit), and you do if you live in an area with a high background radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran#Radioactivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran#Radioactivity And what else? Yes, the evacuation around Fukushima. They panicked and evacuated far too many :(

mpweiher 3y ago
Not just did it not have containment, it was intrinsically unstable. The west never built reactors that dangerous, and nobody operates reactors that dangerous (that type was fixed). Anti-nukies have this feeling that anything nuclear is categorically more dangerous than anything non-nuclear. They imagine the exclusion zone around Chernobyl to be a liefeless wasteland out of a dystopian sci-fi movie, when in reality it is a thriving wild-life reserve where you might have a slightly higher statistical risk of cancer. And you are absolutely right: they evacuated way too much. In Chernobyl as well. In both cases the negative health effects of the evacuation were far more severe than the negative health effects of the radiation. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have evacuated at all, but a whole lot less. Numbers don’t lie.
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  > Not just did it not have containment, it was intrinsically unstable. I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. > thriving wild-life reserve I know. > where you might have a slightly higher statistical risk of cancer. I know. > In Chernobyl as well. I know. > In both cases the negative health effects of the evacuation were far more severe than the negative health effects of the radiation. I know. > Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have evacuated at all, but a whole lot less. Absolutely agreed. > Numbers don’t lie. I never really trusted 7.
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    > I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. Why did you do it then? I didn't. Also, the argument that "event x is not valid because it can't happen this way anymore" is as useless as the initial promise of safety. Some things don't happen this way. Others can still happen, and it can still end up being disastrous. There is always the human and nature factors. You just can't ignore them. Sure they are unlikely, but they still can happen and all those unlikely things that can happen to renewable sources are just by far less terrible than what can happen if you have a nuclear reactor around. This is why your number games will never end up being fruitful. People who usually play those games accuse their adversaries as ignorant, when in fact they are the ignorant ones.
    - peterfirefly 3y ago
      > People who usually play those games accuse their adversaries as ignorant, when in fact they are the ignorant ones.
      - Krasnol 3y ago
        I like how you went for this and didn't even touch the actual topic anymore. Pretty representative.
        peterfirefly 3y ago
        Ok, please explain what you mean by "results of radiation throughout generations". Or how nuclear power in France can go wrong if you didn't have either a Chernobyl scenario in mind or a "tsunami hits the right bank of the Seine". If what you did wasn't a reference to Chernobyl or Fukushima then, pray tell, what was it?
        Krasnol 3y ago
        > Ok, please explain what you mean by "results of radiation throughout generations". https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ > Or how nuclear power in France can go wrong if you didn't have either a Chernobyl scenario in mind or I'm no nuclear scientists, but even they were unable to prevent the accidents which happened. So what's your point? Or didn't you get mine?

mpweiher 3y ago

Not just did it not have containment, it was intrinsically unstable. The west never built reactors that dangerous, and nobody operates reactors that dangerous (that type was fixed). Anti-nukies have this feeling that anything nuclear is categorically more dangerous than anything non-nuclear. They imagine the exclusion zone around Chernobyl to be a liefeless wasteland out of a dystopian sci-fi movie, when in reality it is a thriving wild-life reserve where you might have a slightly higher statistical risk of cancer. And you are absolutely right: they evacuated way too much. In Chernobyl as well. In both cases the negative health effects of the evacuation were far more severe than the negative health effects of the radiation. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have evacuated at all, but a whole lot less. Numbers don’t lie.

peterfirefly 3y ago
> Not just did it not have containment, it was intrinsically unstable. I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. > thriving wild-life reserve I know. > where you might have a slightly higher statistical risk of cancer. I know. > In Chernobyl as well. I know. > In both cases the negative health effects of the evacuation were far more severe than the negative health effects of the radiation. I know. > Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have evacuated at all, but a whole lot less. Absolutely agreed. > Numbers don’t lie. I never really trusted 7.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  > I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. Why did you do it then? I didn't. Also, the argument that "event x is not valid because it can't happen this way anymore" is as useless as the initial promise of safety. Some things don't happen this way. Others can still happen, and it can still end up being disastrous. There is always the human and nature factors. You just can't ignore them. Sure they are unlikely, but they still can happen and all those unlikely things that can happen to renewable sources are just by far less terrible than what can happen if you have a nuclear reactor around. This is why your number games will never end up being fruitful. People who usually play those games accuse their adversaries as ignorant, when in fact they are the ignorant ones.
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    > People who usually play those games accuse their adversaries as ignorant, when in fact they are the ignorant ones.
    - Krasnol 3y ago
      I like how you went for this and didn't even touch the actual topic anymore. Pretty representative.
      - peterfirefly 3y ago
        Ok, please explain what you mean by "results of radiation throughout generations". Or how nuclear power in France can go wrong if you didn't have either a Chernobyl scenario in mind or a "tsunami hits the right bank of the Seine". If what you did wasn't a reference to Chernobyl or Fukushima then, pray tell, what was it?
        Krasnol 3y ago
        > Ok, please explain what you mean by "results of radiation throughout generations". https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ > Or how nuclear power in France can go wrong if you didn't have either a Chernobyl scenario in mind or I'm no nuclear scientists, but even they were unable to prevent the accidents which happened. So what's your point? Or didn't you get mine?