Yep, I’m also afraid of taking airplanes because a handful of them have crashed. But per TWh produced, nuclear is statistically the safest method… just like that it’s statistically safer to fly across the country than to drive there, but I’m too scared for that :/
If you want the answer, here’s the data. Solar is slightly safer than Nuclear, Nuclear is slightly safer than Wind. The three are WAY safer than fossil fuels.
Yeah it looks bombed-out as fuck to anything more complicated than plant-life. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be pursuing nuclear energy, just that this argument feels very poorly constructed and intentionally misleading.
It having an inconclusive effect on wildlife, but wildlife clearly being able to survive in the region, doesn’t really detract from what I originally thought.
From the article you linked:
“No matter what the consequences of lingering radiation might be, there were massive benefits to people leaving.”
Yeah I think we both agree that nuclear is worth pursuing, it’s not 100% safe but nothing is; even windmills catch fire or spin apart. It’s far safer than fossil fuels.
When a car crashes, there’s usually a magnitude less people impacted then when a plane crashes. But you know what? Air travel is still much, much safer than car travel. Large but infrequent incidents can be much less dangerous than smaller but more common incidents in the aggregate.
They’re just looking at death rates, not the reduced economic activity due to restrictions in usable land, and the transition costs for moving.
They also looked at, say, the mortality rate for the thyroid cancer and count the 2-8% death rate only
The other 92% suffered nothing I guess. . . /s
But i’ll grant them that coal seems way way worse.
Though basing on 2007 study is a time before the IED kicked in and a lot of LCPD plants were running limited hours instead of scrubbers - modern coal has to be cleaner by the directive - unfortunately the article is paywalled so hard to tell what their sample was based on time-wise and tech-wise.
Hydro estimate is interesting because it shows the impact of the one off major catastrophic event.
What? Do you live in the 1950s? Have you heard of nuclear accidents? How many people did wind and solar energy kill so far?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
Yep, I’m also afraid of taking airplanes because a handful of them have crashed. But per TWh produced, nuclear is statistically the safest method… just like that it’s statistically safer to fly across the country than to drive there, but I’m too scared for that :/
If you want the answer, here’s the data. Solar is slightly safer than Nuclear, Nuclear is slightly safer than Wind. The three are WAY safer than fossil fuels.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
this is ridiculous. when a windmill cumples or a solar panel gets hit by hail, they don’t poison the region.
Pripyat and Fukushima don’t happen with windmills and solar cells.
Such a patently stupid argument.
Does this look poisoned to you?
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190701-why-plants-survived-chernobyls-deadly-radiation
Not just plants, wolfs and other animals are quite frequent there also and from studies they have less than 2% birth defects…
That just shows us, that how huge is the nuclear scare propaganda…
lol, does this look poisoned to you?
Yeah it looks bombed-out as fuck to anything more complicated than plant-life. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be pursuing nuclear energy, just that this argument feels very poorly constructed and intentionally misleading.
https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/food-environment/2022/scientists-cant-agree-about-chernobyls-impact-wildlife
It having an inconclusive effect on wildlife, but wildlife clearly being able to survive in the region, doesn’t really detract from what I originally thought.
From the article you linked:
Yeah I think we both agree that nuclear is worth pursuing, it’s not 100% safe but nothing is; even windmills catch fire or spin apart. It’s far safer than fossil fuels.
lolol
When a car crashes, there’s usually a magnitude less people impacted then when a plane crashes. But you know what? Air travel is still much, much safer than car travel. Large but infrequent incidents can be much less dangerous than smaller but more common incidents in the aggregate.
This argument would make sense if the aircraft, when they crashed, left radioactive debris with hundreds of years of threat.
Thank fuck we don’t let the nuclear industry make aircraft.
Otherwise your premise disregards the long life of the threat involved.
They’re just looking at death rates, not the reduced economic activity due to restrictions in usable land, and the transition costs for moving. They also looked at, say, the mortality rate for the thyroid cancer and count the 2-8% death rate only The other 92% suffered nothing I guess. . . /s
But i’ll grant them that coal seems way way worse. Though basing on 2007 study is a time before the IED kicked in and a lot of LCPD plants were running limited hours instead of scrubbers - modern coal has to be cleaner by the directive - unfortunately the article is paywalled so hard to tell what their sample was based on time-wise and tech-wise.
Hydro estimate is interesting because it shows the impact of the one off major catastrophic event.