5 ms·

> 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 powe

> 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
        > https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ LOL. Just tried a browser that goes through their illegal consent page without giving consent and it's actually worse than I had imagined. It's all about orphans in Belarus, which for some reasons becomes "the Chernobyl region". No connection to radiation or the nuclear accident whatsoever. Certainly no "results of radiation throughout generations" Oh, one claimed connection: "The effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster on the Belarusian economy prevented building and repair efforts, leaving many orphanages and Day-Care Centres poorly equipped,..." Yeah...no. Trying to verify those claims brings up articles that link back to this "charity". Nicely circular. And of course what effects there are are socio-economic effects of the evacuation and stigmatization, not "results of radiation" For example: "The widespread public image of socially and economically depressed territories with traumatized populations often prevents economic activities from developing in the affected communities." Of course the effects of the fall of the Soviet Union and the dictatorship in Belarus vastly exceed the effects even of this stigmatization. We have similar effects in Fukushima, for example the fishermen have been negatively affected. Not by radiation, because the fish are totally fine+safe, but by people not wanting to buy fish from "Fukushima", because of their irrational fears. So it all goes back to my old observation: Fear of nuclear energy is vastly more dangerous than nuclear energy.

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
        > https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ LOL. Just tried a browser that goes through their illegal consent page without giving consent and it's actually worse than I had imagined. It's all about orphans in Belarus, which for some reasons becomes "the Chernobyl region". No connection to radiation or the nuclear accident whatsoever. Certainly no "results of radiation throughout generations" Oh, one claimed connection: "The effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster on the Belarusian economy prevented building and repair efforts, leaving many orphanages and Day-Care Centres poorly equipped,..." Yeah...no. Trying to verify those claims brings up articles that link back to this "charity". Nicely circular. And of course what effects there are are socio-economic effects of the evacuation and stigmatization, not "results of radiation" For example: "The widespread public image of socially and economically depressed territories with traumatized populations often prevents economic activities from developing in the affected communities." Of course the effects of the fall of the Soviet Union and the dictatorship in Belarus vastly exceed the effects even of this stigmatization. We have similar effects in Fukushima, for example the fishermen have been negatively affected. Not by radiation, because the fish are totally fine+safe, but by people not wanting to buy fish from "Fukushima", because of their irrational fears. So it all goes back to my old observation: Fear of nuclear energy is vastly more dangerous than nuclear energy.