←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 5 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
binaryturtle ◴[12 Sep 25 18:49 UTC] No.45225297[source]▶
This is clean, until something goes catastrophically wrong.

(Which eventually it will. The more reactors, the more chances for it to happen.)

replies(6): >>45225340 #>>45225346 #>>45225403 #>>45225453 #>>45225576 #>>45226086 #
exabrial ◴[12 Sep 25 19:14 UTC] No.45225576[source]▶
You are incorrect fortunately.

Western designs are safe, most Soviet-era ones are/were not. It's unfortunate that nuclear power still has this stigma, as it's like saying "all cars are unsafe" while comparing the crash test ratings of a modern sedan to a 1960's chevy bel aire.

replies(1): >>45225641 #
nilslindemann ◴[12 Sep 25 19:20 UTC] No.45225641[source]▶
Then why did Fukushima happen?
replies(4): >>45225821 #>>45225836 #>>45225973 #>>45226069 #
1. happosai ◴[12 Sep 25 19:48 UTC] No.45225973[source]▶
That tsunami killed 20.000+ people, and spilled massive amounts of chemicals and toxic junk to the ocean.

Yet people keep fixating over the radioactive pollution, including evicting people from their homes for truly minor amounts of radiation.

Turns out the "worst case scenario" of nuclear accidents is jackpot for nature. By clearing Fukushima from humans, nature is thriving: https://www.sciencealert.com/animals-aren-t-just-surviving-i...

replies(1): >>45227158 #
2. everforward ◴[12 Sep 25 21:47 UTC] No.45227158[source]▶
To put a number on it, linear no threshold models predict ~130 deaths as a result of the radiation (and are known to over-estimate lethalities at low doses).

Around 50 people a year die while clearing snow in Japan, so it's ~ twice as dangerous as shoveling snow in worst-case predictions.

replies(1): >>45227881 #
3. pfdietz ◴[12 Sep 25 23:27 UTC] No.45227881[source]▶
LNT is not known to over-estimate lethalities at low doses. The actual situation is that the predicted deaths at low doses occur at such a low rate that the signal cannot be detected above the noise. That doesn't mean the prediction was wrong, just that it cannot be verified. It's possible (as in, consistent with evidence) that LNT under-predicts deaths at low doses.
replies(1): >>45229348 #
4. happosai ◴[13 Sep 25 04:40 UTC] No.45229348{3}[source]▶
Even if LNT would under-predict it is still a rounding error in the big picture of the tsunami disaster.

And, let's put it straight: LNT is scaremongering fiction. People who live in Ramsay, Iran, are exposed to higher level of background radiation that n what is allowed for nuclear workers. Yet, there is no elevated levels of cancer or birth defects, not is there a shorter lifespan for people living there either.

The dose makes the poison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

replies(1): >>45229415 #
5. pfdietz ◴[13 Sep 25 04:55 UTC] No.45229415{4}[source]▶
Epidemiology is a very blunt instrument. The data you mention there cannot be used to reach the conclusion you are trying to reach, since confounding effects cannot be excluded (and because the doses they receive can only be estimated, not actually measured). Yes, radiation biologists know all about those people and have judged that evidence as part of a larger picture.