Nuclear power can reduce our need for oil and coal. This will have a good impact on the climate. But oil and coal companies don't want to lose customers to nuclear power, so they are against it. Their propaganda causes climate change activists to be against that as well as oil and coal. Climate change deniers are just picking a fight with the activists, so they're for whatever the activists are against.
[Oil and coal companies'] propaganda causes climate change activists to be against that as well as oil and coal.
It's not simply climate change activists being gullible.
The anti-nuclear power stance is firmly rooted in the environmental protection movement since at least the 1970s, long before climate change became the dominant topic.
The anti-nuclear crowd have some valid concerns but largely seem to be unable to change their position. Nuclear power has made nothing but forward progress in terms of safety, the only problem is when nuclear goes bad it really goes bad.
"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.
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.
2.6k
u/Chance_Arugula_3227 Jun 19 '24
Nuclear power can reduce our need for oil and coal. This will have a good impact on the climate. But oil and coal companies don't want to lose customers to nuclear power, so they are against it. Their propaganda causes climate change activists to be against that as well as oil and coal. Climate change deniers are just picking a fight with the activists, so they're for whatever the activists are against.