2 ms·

Most of the nuclear power that makes up that chart was built when there was significantly less regulation on reactors than there is today. Even if deregulation

Most of the nuclear power that makes up that chart was built when there was significantly less regulation on reactors than there is today. Even if deregulation increased nuclear deaths per watt by two orders of magnitude (which I strongly doubt!), nuclear would still be orders of magnitude safer than the fossil fuels that have replaced it across the western world.

Kon5ole 2mo ago
>Even if deregulation increased nuclear deaths per watt by two orders of magnitude (which I strongly doubt!) Why doubt it? Chernobyl alone was very close to causing millions of deaths. The actual accident released only about 5% of the core, but had the graphite fire not been extinguished, places as far away as Scotland and Scandinavia would not be able to grow enough edible food within their borders for decades. Europe would starve. Leukemia cases would be in the millions. The exclusion zone around Chernobyl would be hundreds of kilometers instead of 30. If the ground water barrier had been broken - which was likely - the ground water for tens of millions of people would be poisoned for centuries. The only reason to doubt it is that two orders of magnitude is probably not enough.
- Hammershaft 2mo ago
  I hadn't heard any of these claims before. Without a source, I decided to ask chatgpt. Its assessment is that essentially every claim in this comment is false. If you think chatgpt is wrong can you explain why? https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a72ee6f965c81919cc6e4bf8da64262 https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a72ee6f965c81919cc6e4bf8da64262
  - Kon5ole 2mo ago
    By all means use chatGPT, but your linked chat session hasn't understood the conditions. It answers mostly based on what actually happened, not taking into account the scenario I described. Try asking chatGPT something like: "just a simple yes or no - Could the Chernobyl accident in theory under worst case conditions have developed to a disaster causing local food shortages in western europe and affect the water supply for millions of people in the Ukraine and neighboring countries?" For me, I get "Yes" from ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude Opus. You may argue that Chernobyl was a hunk of junk plant and that it can't happen anywhere else, so ask ChatGPT this as well: "just a simple yes or no - is there any scenario where fuel stored in ponds at US nuclear plants could ever release pollution like Chernobyl?" Yes. It really is in a class of its own when it comes to risk.

Kon5ole 2mo ago

>Even if deregulation increased nuclear deaths per watt by two orders of magnitude (which I strongly doubt!) Why doubt it? Chernobyl alone was very close to causing millions of deaths. The actual accident released only about 5% of the core, but had the graphite fire not been extinguished, places as far away as Scotland and Scandinavia would not be able to grow enough edible food within their borders for decades. Europe would starve. Leukemia cases would be in the millions. The exclusion zone around Chernobyl would be hundreds of kilometers instead of 30. If the ground water barrier had been broken - which was likely - the ground water for tens of millions of people would be poisoned for centuries. The only reason to doubt it is that two orders of magnitude is probably not enough.

Hammershaft 2mo ago
I hadn't heard any of these claims before. Without a source, I decided to ask chatgpt. Its assessment is that essentially every claim in this comment is false. If you think chatgpt is wrong can you explain why? https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a72ee6f965c81919cc6e4bf8da64262 https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a72ee6f965c81919cc6e4bf8da64262
- Kon5ole 2mo ago
  By all means use chatGPT, but your linked chat session hasn't understood the conditions. It answers mostly based on what actually happened, not taking into account the scenario I described. Try asking chatGPT something like: "just a simple yes or no - Could the Chernobyl accident in theory under worst case conditions have developed to a disaster causing local food shortages in western europe and affect the water supply for millions of people in the Ukraine and neighboring countries?" For me, I get "Yes" from ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude Opus. You may argue that Chernobyl was a hunk of junk plant and that it can't happen anywhere else, so ask ChatGPT this as well: "just a simple yes or no - is there any scenario where fuel stored in ponds at US nuclear plants could ever release pollution like Chernobyl?" Yes. It really is in a class of its own when it comes to risk.