You're viewing a single thread.
One time? Wikipedia says over 100 serious incidents and lists about 30 of them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents&wprov=rarw1
It's fine if you like nuclear, just don't try and claim it was one time. It poses serious risk and should be treated as such.
Most of those didn't involve the magic rocks, and most didn't hurt anyone.
More people die creating the building materials for a powerplant (or a windmills, or a solar panel) than ever during operation. The numbers really don't matter.
I honestly don't care what we do, as long as we stop burning coal, oil and gas. The way I see it, every nuclear plant and windmill means we all die a little later.
This is the way. Nuclear is actually one of the safer energy sources, and one of the more reliable. It's also more expensive than most renewables. As always it comes down to local conditions and situations that favor one power source over another - like countries with lots of geothermal that can be exploited or solar probably won't go nuclear.
Look up deaths per kWHr of different energy sources and come back to me
It has that low death rate precisely because it is heavily regulated.
The typical nuclear booster argument works on the following circular logic:
"Nuclear is perfectly safe."
"But that's not the problem with nuclear. The problem with nuclear is its too expensive."
"Nuclear is expensive because it's overly regulated!"
"But nuclear is only safe because of those heavy regulations!"
"We would have everything powered by nuclear by now if it weren't for Greenpeace."
This exactly. But they keep shilling nuclear power regardless. Super silly tribalism.
That's not my point and I'm already aware.
The house burning probably happened more than one time too.
The alternative is not necessarily oil.
It feels like it is otherwise we wouldn't possibly use it.
Imagine dangerous drilling, all the complex refining, the mass transpiration systems around the world moving billions of tonnes, etc. It's stupid and complex. The system to enable it was somewhat forced & def forced to maintain it, it's well documented actually.
Just put it somewhere noone lives like the Dakotas or places people who don't matter live, like west Virginia. All the coal miners getting cancer anyway, why not double tap?
Low blow on West Virginia. Cool state and nice people. Hoping to move there someday.
The coal mining industry employs about 38,000 people. Dunkin Donuts alone employs seven times as many people as the whole coal mining industry. There just aren't that many coal miners anymore. And everyone currently involved with it joined up knowing full well the days of coal were numbered.
Depends. Is there a McElroy brother nearby? Awesome. No? Hmm. Not as sure.
Yet it still has much lower deaths per energy generated than fossil fuels, and even less than some renewables. A single hydro accident can kill more people than even the worst nuclear disasters. It's not fair to pretend that all the other sources are perfectly safe.
Who's pretending they're safe? The only pretending I see in the meme is about nuclear. But if you want to argue with something I didn't say, have at it I guess.
You can't call nuclear dangerous when it's literally safer than many other energy sources. It's like calling Caffeine dangerous when meth exists.
Caffeine is dangerous and can kill humans in large doses AND meth exists. It's not one or the other, genius. Please mainline some caffeine to prove your point. Meth exists, you'll be fine.
Yes it can. Pretending it's that dangerous in doses normally consumed by humans in say coffee would be silly though and that's exactly what you are doing. Like you could make a dirty bomb from spent fuel rods, but that's irresponsible. You could build outdated and unsafe reactors, but again that's irresponsible. You could also burn people to death using the power of the sun and some mirrors. Do you get my point?
doses normally consumed
So we can just put an much caffeine into a person as we want because it's ok in normal dosages? That's wrong. Your analogy sucks. You can't discount danger because of normal conditions. Tsunamis weren't normal for Fukushima. Do you understand?
Do we get to ignore things that get labeled irresponsible? Plus, if there's been a hundred incidents, that pretty much says we aren't and cannot be responsible enough to prevent them.
Your points aren't worth arguing further. I will not be engaging anymore. Feel free to continue to think that your analogies are clever; I will not.
How many of those incidents killed anyone? It's the same with aviation, lots of incidents but few are actually fatal. We still fly everyday.
You can argue all you want but unless you have something that's actually significantly safer then what are you going to do?