4 ms·
> First of all, of course one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU Blocking other countries tends to make member states hate each othe
by preisschild 1y ago
> First of all, of course one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU
Blocking other countries tends to make member states hate each other, which isn't good for the EU.
> Secondly, the waste products of nuclear reactors are much more problematic than CO2
You literally just put them inside steel concrete casks [1] after they were in a pool for a few years. You can even hug those casks safely. Whereas the CO2 is in the air we breathe and in the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming.
How is this "more problematic"?
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
- nottorp 1y ago> How is this "more problematic"? Just like more people are afraid of airplane accidents in spite of them being much more likely to die in their own car.
- natmaka 1y ago> Just like more people are afraid of airplane accidents This doesn't compute: avoiding being a victim of a plane accident is rather simple: don't hop on any plane and your are something along the .99999 covered. Avoiding being threatened (and many generations after you) by a nuclear major accident or erring 'hot' nuclear waste is way (WAY!) more difficult.
- nottorp 1y agoSo you are walking to work right? If you avoid airplanes, why not extend this to cars?
- s1artibartfast 1y agoI don't think it's a slam dunk for banning nuclear, but agree with the parent post that consent to risk is a valid part of the conversation. Car or plane, the people most exposed to the risk have some choice in the matter - to fly, drive, or be around vehicles. New considerations are introduced when those exposed to the risks of your choice maybe hundreds of miles away with no say, or even yet to be born.
- preisschild 1y agoIts very similar. Most people "at risk" for a accident in a nuclear power plant are the workers. There are multiple redundancies that make sure dangerous levels of radioactive isotopes are not released to the public. Thats why every western nuclear power plant has required containment buildings basically forever. Chernobyl didn't, which is why it affected the environment / nearby people.
- natmaka 1y agoNo containment is perfect. In French nuclear plants it has to "contain" most of the stuff for at least 72 hours, but no one sees it as a sealed repository and it sure isn't.
- chickenbig 1y ago> No containment is perfect. You set the bar too high. Radiation isn't an all-or-nothing phenomenon; we are exposed to background radiation all the time, so expecting perfection is unjustified. Also a large portion of radioactivity that might escape comes from short-lived isotopes, making short term evacuation a possibility.
- natmaka 1y agoThe bar is the comparison with the other set of pertinent electricity-generating equipments: renewables. The LNT debate isn't settled, effects of added background radiation is difficult to assess. Moreover the dust escaping from a nuclear plant may be inhaled, ingested... ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committed_dose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committed_dose ). A "large portion" isn't all, and at Fukushima the nuclear accident-triggered evacuation officially made around 2200 victims.
- chickenbig 1y ago> The bar is the comparison with the other set of pertinent electricity-generating equipments: renewables. > A "large portion" isn't all Setting the bar too high. > The LNT debate isn't settled Indeed the evidence for effects at smaller and longer term doses is at best weak. We also have a good idea of how DNA repair works. But LNT seems like the least unreasonable conservative way to treat radiation, which may be replaced by something in the up-coming ICRP modernisation. > Moreover the dust escaping What sort of dust is this? > nuclear accident-triggered evacuation officially made around 2200 victims In hindsight how many of these people needed to be evacuated? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171120085453.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171120085453.h... How many people died from overheating due to a lack of electricity in the years after Fukushima?
- natmaka 1y agoThe misdeeds of some (nuclear...) do not constitute mitigating circumstances for others (cars...).
- moi2388 1y agoIt’s not. Example: I’ve never been in contact with nuclear waste, yet constantly breathe in the co2 from coal plants.
- natmaka 1y agoScoop: it now is not about "nuclear vs. coal" but "nuclear vs. renewables".