3 ms·

> This is highly debatable. Even at 10x you're still a far cry from fossils related deaths, every single year > Because those who refuse to be exposed to indu

> This is highly debatable. Even at 10x you're still a far cry from fossils related deaths, every single year > Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it ??? In cities the bulk of deaths are cyclists/pedestrians, not even talking about air pollution due to exhaust fumes being produces en masse right in front of people's flats. 1/5 of road deaths in EU are pedestrians > thanks to nuclear waste Coal power plants are literally generating more radioactive ematerial than nuclear power plants lmao: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... The entire french nuclear waste, since the 70s, would fit in a cube with a side length of 15m... The one that matter: <3% of the total waste, the rest is low radioactivity/short half life waste

natmaka 2y ago
> still a far cry from fossils related deaths The question is not "which amount of fossil fuel, which amount of nuclear?" but about renewables and nuclear. >> Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it > ??? In cities the bulk of deaths are cyclists/pedestrians Being ultra-alert, or avoiding crossing any street or even avoiding any area where motorized vehicles zoom around is possible. Avoiding most of the effects of a major nuclear accident or of some wandering "hot" nuclear waste (during the upcoming 100000 years or so...) is way, way more difficult. > Coal power plants are literally generating more radioactive ematerial This is not about preferring coal to nuclear but about preferring renewables to nuclear. > The entire french nuclear waste (I'm French. ) Our "solution", named "Cigéo" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o ), isn't even ready (more than 60 years after the first industrial reactor diverged) and is officially imperfect (there are risks, French ahead: section «Déchets» in https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/#h.e4d4cdh347op https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/#h.e4d4cdh3... ). Better avoiding producing such stuff, IMHO. Renewables... BTW check the trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2001..latest&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

natmaka 2y ago

> still a far cry from fossils related deaths The question is not "which amount of fossil fuel, which amount of nuclear?" but about renewables and nuclear. >> Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it > ??? In cities the bulk of deaths are cyclists/pedestrians Being ultra-alert, or avoiding crossing any street or even avoiding any area where motorized vehicles zoom around is possible. Avoiding most of the effects of a major nuclear accident or of some wandering "hot" nuclear waste (during the upcoming 100000 years or so...) is way, way more difficult. > Coal power plants are literally generating more radioactive ematerial This is not about preferring coal to nuclear but about preferring renewables to nuclear. > The entire french nuclear waste (I'm French. ) Our "solution", named "Cigéo" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o ), isn't even ready (more than 60 years after the first industrial reactor diverged) and is officially imperfect (there are risks, French ahead: section «Déchets» in https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/#h.e4d4cdh347op https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/#h.e4d4cdh3... ). Better avoiding producing such stuff, IMHO. Renewables... BTW check the trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2001..latest&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...