←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.694s | source
Show context
m101 ◴[] No.45230060[source]
I think a good exercise for the reader is to reflect on why they were ever against nuclear power in the first place. Nuclear power was always the greenest, most climate friendly, safest, cheapest (save for what we do to ourselves), most energy dense, most long lasting, option.
replies(25): >>45230185 #>>45230223 #>>45230479 #>>45230658 #>>45230757 #>>45231144 #>>45231518 #>>45231738 #>>45232518 #>>45232615 #>>45232756 #>>45232757 #>>45232937 #>>45233169 #>>45233513 #>>45233762 #>>45233817 #>>45233825 #>>45234181 #>>45234637 #>>45234828 #>>45235394 #>>45238856 #>>45240108 #>>45243016 #
teamonkey ◴[] No.45231738[source]
> I think a good exercise for the reader is to reflect on why they were ever against nuclear power in the first place.

The context is a long string of nuclear incidents throughout the Cold War through to the ‘90s.

Not just Chernobyl, not just Fukushima, but the string of disasters at Windscale / Sellafield and many others across the globe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accident...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_...

These disasters were huge, newsworthy and alarmingly regular. People read about those getting sick and dying directly as a result. They felt the cleanup costs as taxpayers. They saw how land became unusable after a large event, and, especially terrifying for those who had lived as adults through Cold War, saw the radioactive fallout blown across international borders by the wind.

It’s not Greenpeace or an anti-nuclear lobby who caused the widespread public reaction to nuclear. It was the public reaction seeing it with their own eyes, and making an understandable decision that they didn’t like the risks.

Chernobyl was one hammer blow to the coffin lid, Fukushima the second, but nuclear power was already half-dead before either of those events, kept alive only by unpopular political necessity.

I’m not even anti-nuclear myself, but let’s be clear: the worldwide nuclear energy industry is itself to blame for the lack of faith in nuclear energy.

replies(4): >>45232323 #>>45232361 #>>45247298 #>>45247935 #
gilbetron ◴[] No.45232361[source]
And yet if you look at the "Fatalities" column, you see a stream of zeroes with a handful of non-zeroes, the worst being Chernobyl at 50 direct fatalities. Rooftop solar accounts for more deaths.

Nuke plants are scary when they fail, but the actual threat is way lower than we play it out to be.

replies(7): >>45232520 #>>45232777 #>>45232788 #>>45233204 #>>45233484 #>>45233871 #>>45235368 #
1. wkat4242 ◴[] No.45235368[source]
It's not just about deaths. That's the thing. People can get sick, the environment gets polluted. A whole town got pulled out of their flats and was never allowed back. The area will remain closed for generations.

Counting deaths does not do the actual damage justice.

replies(2): >>45240814 #>>45247418 #
2. tremon ◴[] No.45240814[source]
A whole town got pulled out of their flats and was never allowed back

How does that measure against a whole planet being pulled out of thermal equilibrium, and the projected displacement of 1 billion people?

replies(1): >>45250138 #
3. account42 ◴[] No.45247418[source]
How many towns were closed in order to strip mine coal? And no, that's not just a thing of the past but still happening today.

How many people's health was impacted from coal and coal burning exhaust, which btw. also includes radioactive particles.

replies(1): >>45251740 #
4. 1718627440 ◴[] No.45250138[source]
> was

vs.

> projected

5. yencabulator ◴[] No.45251740[source]
Defending nuclear by saying coal is worse is kinda weird and comes across as "motivated reasoning". Nobody worth listening to wants more coal.