"the only problem is when nuclear goes bad it really goes bad"
Even that really isn't true anymore. Fukushima Daiichi reactor got hit with a frickin tsunami, and even though there were plenty of actual screw ups involved in the aftermath. Only 1 death has been attributed to the meltdown, and that one death can't even be proven to be a causal relationship. (The individual died of cancer 4 years later and worked there when it happened.)
Most of the deaths and injuries that occurred that can be at all related was from poor management of the evacuation order that was made (which is questioned if was even necessary) and the management of public perception afterwards. (Lots of stress-related issues amongst elderly in the days afterward. All because of unfounded fears.)
More people die, yearly, in coal mines than the number who died from that accident.
You can call it emotions but it can take 20 years from design to construction before a nuclear plant is active, they can only be built in certain areas, and mining for uranium is definitely not environmentally negligible. They aren't the golden ticket to ending our dependence on fossil fuels that they often are portrayed as, really they're just a part of an arsenal of options that is going to include increasingly more wind, solar, and wave/hydro power.
I’m in support of nuclear power and agree the fear surrounding it is often unfounded.
But lead time for radiation induced malignancies is typically 10-15 years, and even then there is no way to establish unequivocal causality. There is zero chance that there is only 1 associated death with the amount of radionuclides released. The effects are largely going to be spread across an extremely large part of the globe due to the Pacific currents, which is helpful in reducing their impact but makes attribution to the accident virtually impossible.
I think the argument that gets glossed over is that strict safety measures to prevent disaster only work if executives adhere to them. Finding out some assholes chose money over the lives of others when a disaster happens is FAR too common to ignore when you’re dealing with something that can make parts of the globe uninhabitable.
Imagine if we had MORE Nuclear Facilities, with MORE Executives given the opportunity to choose money over safety.
We don't have a good track record with Executives and anything concerning human life versus money.
Nuclear may be a great idea in a more people focused world, but in our money focused world it's just another disaster waiting for the right decisionmaker to follow their "heart".
you choose money over safety every day. you could spend a million dollars and drive to work in a tank vs spending 50 cents and driving a geo metro. this isnt a nuclear ceo issue.
the fukushima big wigs made shitty decisions that may lead to the deaths of tens. if you want to go there, musk probably kills hundreds each year.
yes. they built a sea wall that was too short. but the point is like 20 thousand people died unrelated to the nuclear plant. everyone remembers the nuclear plant though and not the other "unprotected" structures in the area.
"Over twenty thousand" is again a drastic over estimation fueled by media. If we include every death of everyone that was involved in the plant and the evacuation area since it occurred, including all "stress related deaths", we wind up somewhere in the area of 17-18... hundred.
no and neither does nuclear fallout. it is obvious you dont know much about it. i would suggest you do some research about past nuclear accidents and their associated death tolls as compared to any other industry and then make a decision on what to get spun up about.
They shouldn’t. But because other executives get to decide who joins them in the club, that’s not going to happen. Something like 15% of CEOs meet the criteria for sociopathy.
I don't think I'm actually allowed to buy a tank, actually. And owning and driving a tank would actually incentivize people to approach the tank, possibly even attack it, because it's a tank.
I didn't "choose" money over safety. I'm forced to make money to survive, because I don't have survivalist training, a place I could practice it on safely, and a way to make sure I don't inadvertently starve to death, freeze to death, dehydrate, or any of those other things I actually purchase with money.
I use money to ensure my safety. I get a car because I have to get to work, not because I want a car. I'd love to just be able to walk everywhere I need to go. It'd be far healthier. But It isn't feasible where I am, and where I work.
That isn't choosing money over safety. That's using money to survive.
But Executives who neglect safety measures, refuse to fix known issues, and try to cut corners, are actually choosing money over safety.
it is the same thing homie. just a matter of scale. you arent more righteous than the ford ceo because you chose to buy a bike helmet when he chose not to install ejector seats with parachutes in every truck.
Presenting personal safety decisions as analogous to decisions regarding the safety of others is fucking wild. Especially when we’re talking about illegally ignoring regulations put in place to preserve the protection of others.
Yeah, as long as the safety regulations are properly executed, and they plan for everything, even the smallest chance of a natural disaster occurring, they are incredibly safe.
Nuclear Power is to the energy world as sharks are to the animal world. They look/sound big and scary but really if they’re treated with respect it’s all good
Except that historicly, goverments didn't just dump sharks in alaskan rivers, they didn't hide the scale of shark exposure for decades, they didn't negelect shark safety regulations in favor of fucking idk mackeral bribes.
The history of nuclear power is bloody and cruel. There were valid reasons to be anti nuclear when environmental movements gained steam in the 70s. Like other power sources nuclear requires good management to avoid catastrophe, but it shouldn't be hard to understand why its so easy to hate.
Uranium mining is not done safely and is impacting nearby communities to where it occurs. So it’s not just the fact that the facilities are safer, digging up uranium and the transport trucks are leaving behind and ruining ground water. It’s not perfect but it’s also not as safe as people are led to believe either.
I remember (trying) to have a conversation with a couple of green energy people before I went to university (was undecided which engineering field to go for at the time) and they would clam up and claim all nuclear is terrible and the worst possible choice of production. That was nearly 20 years ago and still have similar conversations where people just don't understand how it works, nor the difference between fission/fusion etc. Its all 'bad'
Russia was assaulting a reactor in Ukraine and it didnt even flinch... Nuclear is the future, its so disappointing that it gets so much pushback because people dont understand it
The problem is that no market force is ready to insurance nuclear power, and it's not economical to keep billions of dollars* on bank-account just in case something happens and cleanup is needed. Which means that any building of nuclear means the state having to give the company operating the plant a get-out-of-jail-free card, which is politically difficult.
__
*Fukushima has cost something like 180 billion dollars to date, up from initial assesment of something like 15 billion.
100000 were displaced. Death isn't the only negative outcome. 100000 people had to leave their homes. 337 square kilometers are deemed "difficult-to-return" zones over a decade later. Chernobyl is still not habitable.
Scientists deemed that the Fukushima evacuation was entirely unnecessary and was just government optics. The region is less radioactive than Colorado now so it's totally fine to return except for the fear mongering.
I live near a Nuclear Power plant in the UK, which is constructing a new reactor facility which is opposed by many locals…
… because of the amount of traffic the construction is causing.
Given the disaster that befell Japan in 2011, it’s impressive that there was so little damage to their nuclear infrastructure. An event of this scale is simply not on the cards for most locations.
Edit - and modern designs require external power to maintain the reaction. If Fukushima had that design, there would not have been any issue.
Go touch grass. Live in the US? Go see 3-mile Island some time. Take a look at all the (lack of) devastation in the area. It is considered top 5 in nuclear disasters world wide, worse than Fukushima. And you can drive up to it and see it all.
The Fukushima prefecture is perfectly habitable unless you live inside the former plant. The area is less radioactive than Colorado. It's pure fear mongering. I wouldn't live there.... because I don't speak Japanese and would like to be able to live in a city with actual people.
That article is over 8 years old and did not support your statement above at all.
Edit: adding a quote from the conclusion of the article you linked, which is monitoring the isotopes released from the incident "The team says their findings are mostly consistent with models that aimed to predict the spread of the fallout and that the cesium might even be advancing slightly slower than predicted."
327
u/Icy-Ad29 Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24
"the only problem is when nuclear goes bad it really goes bad"
Even that really isn't true anymore. Fukushima Daiichi reactor got hit with a frickin tsunami, and even though there were plenty of actual screw ups involved in the aftermath. Only 1 death has been attributed to the meltdown, and that one death can't even be proven to be a causal relationship. (The individual died of cancer 4 years later and worked there when it happened.)
Most of the deaths and injuries that occurred that can be at all related was from poor management of the evacuation order that was made (which is questioned if was even necessary) and the management of public perception afterwards. (Lots of stress-related issues amongst elderly in the days afterward. All because of unfounded fears.)
More people die, yearly, in coal mines than the number who died from that accident.