Recent searches
Search options
"We estimate that the decline in Nuclear power Plants caused by Chernobyl led to the loss of approximately 141 million expected life years in the U.S., 33 in the U.K. and 318 million globally".
So, for the slow kids, let’s spell this out:
1. Chernobyl happened
2. Many countries close down nuclear or no longer build it
3. Instead fossil fuel plants get built
4. Air pollution is spiking
5. 318 million life years are lost globally (thus far)
All because of fear.
Further in the same report:
- "Fossil fuel campaign contributions [to congressmen] increased by 48.9% in the decade immediately following the Chernobyl accident, converged back to normal in the 2000s, and then surged by another 145.5% after the Fukushima accident."
- "MPs sponsored by [coal] miner’s unions increase the number of anti-nuclear speeches by around one-half of a standard deviation after Chernobyl."
@collectifission You need to include the nuclear accidents which would have occurred with more nuclear operation...
@gaz_a_terra Why would the ratio change? If anything it would drop. Much like airplanes get safer after a plane crash - as the research on why it crashed makes all planes safer - more operation experience would have a push down on any nuclear incidents.
@collectifission @gaz_a_terra the problem is that the public can't tell the diffrence between a powerplant and a bomb. The answer nuclear movement opposed power plants because they saw them as thinley veiled bomb factories and climate change wasn't even a concern that was known to the public at the time. You can't go too far into nuclear argument without somebody mentioning weapons, it's the free space on the bingo square. People also don't understand that nuclear power plants are physically incapable of nuclear detonation but it's common in the Media because Hollywood writers don't need to get a degree in nuclear physics to get the job
@gaz_a_terra @collectifission deaths by chernobyl don't reach even 10k, so even if another chernobyl had happen, the total lost years of expected life because of nuclear wouldn't had reach even 1 million, so there's still at least a 4 order of magnitude more deaths with fossil fuels than there would had been with nuclear.
@collectifission
Easy answer:
Nuclear disasters are "immediate" and "in your face," while the eco-disaster has been on-going, and we've been living/promoting* it, for almost a century now.
Familiarity breeds contempt, or something.
* "They" knew in the 1950s, but doubled down on fossil fuels, because easy money to be had.
@collectifission quick question.. how much water does a fission plant use?
Yeah why don't you pipe down
Nuclear fission masquerading as power is not even remotely efficient especially when considering climate implications
And, you just going to ignore the waste?
@voxofgod How much water a plant uses depends on the power generation size. But it's not as if it disappears, it just gets released again slightly warmer.
Not sure what you're talking about in the second and third line.
And who are you calling fat?
@collectifission according to the studies I've seen more than half the potable water in the United States so yeah let's just ditch the 'it depends on the plant' crap
Slightly warmer? Really? How often do they have to shut down because the water is too warm and it will kill the plants and animals in the water downstream?
Not to mention why are we thinking that heating up water is a good idea when we are in the middle of an ice melting climate crisis?
I edited so you can't deflect, mr.schiller
@collectifission because the minute someone tries to make a joke out of cancer-causing biosphere ending problems within this thing that is obviously your account's purpose,
I feel that much more secure about my bloviation
Not to mention the bad faith argumentation you're making about lost lives and not counting The radioactive water now being spilled into the ocean thanks to Fukushima, as well as all of the medical harms that media have been ignoring for decades from Chernobyl
@voxofgod My my, what a bunch of nonsense.
- Half the potable water supply is complete and utter nonsense. And even if it wasn't, again, it's just released again at a slightly higher temperature. It doesn't magically disappear.
- Yes, environmental regulations are a consideration. If they are a big enough consideration, they warrant building a cooling tower. Did you know Palo Verde NPP in Arizona (yeah, that's a desert climate) is cooled by cleaned sewage water?
1/4
@voxofgod
- Warm water isn't causing climate change. It just gets released as rain again in the case of cooling towers.
2/4
@voxofgod - Yes, I was making a joke. I'm talking about waste ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Seriously, look at my timeline. What YOU aren't talking about is the toxic waste streams coming from, among other things, solar panel factories that remain toxic forever. What do you think those mining tailings are made out of son? In contrast, nuclear 'waste' is not only handled splendidly, it's also a highly valuable future resource.
3/4
@voxofgod - The tritiated Fukushima water is not dangerous, full stop. If it wasn't salt water, you could actually drink it as the tritium levels are 100x lower than what the WHO deems safe for drinking water.
As for Chernobyl: again, fear mongering nonsense.
My original point stands I think: I've been responding to nothing more than condensated fear.
@collectifission All of this is absolutely fascinating and once we have finished cleaning up the 487 stinking smoking pits of hellfire we can start maybe experimenting
Anyway, like I said I'm not interested in anything so that you can make more plutonium
#EndFossilFuels @collectifission @Birk_lab "All because of fear" - Uh, no. All because it's impossible to build NPP both safely and cheaply.
And it wasnt Chernobyl but Three Mile Island that killed it.
@collectifission the most dangerous part of nuclear power is not using enough
@fluffykittycat You dropped this 
with this comment.
@collectifission Fear of what, does anyone remember?
I do.