Super-Lychee8852 t1_j430v0n wrote
Reply to comment by Fabulous_Engineer_79 in Solar and wind is ugly, Nuclear is the only other safe energy. When will it happen here? by drdanagram
There's already a long discussion on 3 mile.
To sum it up, 0 dead, no notable environmental effect.
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j432vv2 wrote
So, supposing that’s true, do you believe that it’s outside the realm of possibility that such an event would cause substantial harm to the environment or people?
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j43auc1 wrote
A repeat incident is astronomically low. That plant was built over 50 years ago, technology has advanced
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j43b4tj wrote
That doesn’t answer the question. Are you a statistician and nuclear physicist and engineer? How else could you be so sure about that?
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j43dzxg wrote
The hundreds of reactors being used around the world without issue. The rest of the world utilizes them quite a bit
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j43hgoa wrote
I’m not sure why you would argue with people online when you have nothing to back up your claims.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j43p67q wrote
Because you're an adult and I'm giving you the points you can look up if you choose.
France generates 70% of its electricity via nuclear. Nuclear provides 10% of the worlds power. Nuclear is reported the second largest source of low carbon power in the world. There are 440 active reactors in the world. China is pumping them out like crazy, currently have 5 in construction. In the US nuclear is generating almost 20% of our grid as is. Finland is 33% nuclear energy production. Sweden is 30%, people in the US like to compare to nordic countries often.
It's very safe. Very efficient. Very good for the environment
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j4432ew wrote
You’re forgetting how incompetent and corrupt Americans are. You sound like Donald Trump promoting coal. It’s not safe, it requires extremely rare and dangerous materials to produce. If society collapses the plants become an immediate problem. It has been a problem in Ukraine for about a year now. Compare that to wind and solar arrays which pose no risk to humanity and the environment. Good thing you have absolutely no decision making power on this.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j44l32i wrote
Wind and solar have no risk??? Also made with toxic chemicals that leech into the environment. Killing far more wildlife than nuclear and taking up far more landfill space. Doubled demand on lithium alongside EV cars. Ever see what a lithium mine looks like? We're already looking at 720 tons of unrecyclable wind trash, the solar panel craze is looking double maybe even triple electronics trash. That stuff isn't environmentally friendly lol
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45um70 wrote
Find me one instance if people getting killed by a horrific wind and solar accident that made the surrounding area uninhabitable. Rhetorically, since you’re a fucking idiot and that doesn’t exist. Or maybe wind and solar bombs? No referring to comic books though.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45xdld wrote
-
You're referring to events that will never happen in the US.
-
The point of solar and wind is to be good for the environment, which it isn't.
-
People die in the mines for the materials, wind turbines kill over 500k birds a year, destroys environment by finding space to discard the waste.
-
Grow up with the name calling kid. Nuclear is the safest energy source we have available
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45xt0e wrote
You are so dense, there’s no point in engaging in civil debate.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45xxji wrote
It is the other way around. You have zero comprehension on the benefits of nuclear above all other options. You'd rather fill landfills with more toxic trash
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45y1vc wrote
Try reading boy
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45y0c9 wrote
No u!
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45vzav wrote
A screening program a year later in 2012 found that more than a third (36%) of children in Fukushima Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands.[215] As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole.
No problem there right? So what if kids get cancer! It’s totally safe! That could never happen here! Certainly not in a country where even the government tried to cover up the polluted water in Flint, Michigan.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45wt3w wrote
It's almost like Fukushima isn't relevant. How many 9.0 magnitude earthquakes followed by 40m tall waves happen in the US?
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45xxwn wrote
Sure, let’s get a nuclear plant going in Florida. We never have weather events here. You are willfully ignoring so much evidence contrary to your views, it’s kind of sad.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45y3nm wrote
So we don't put one in southern Florida? It's not a difficult concept. There are plenty of places in the US that are risk free
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45ym3y wrote
“Risk free” Let’s be sure to consult Super-Lychee8852 on the risks to nuclear power generation here. This guys knows what’s up.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45ytgv wrote
Cope
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j4600w1 wrote
The original argument here was that you try to justify your claim that nuclear generation is ideal by saying that nuclear accidents don’t happen. That’s false. You won’t convince anybody who doesn’t already share your view by making claims that can be so easily verified as false. Then when you’re presented with a fairly long and comprehensive list of accidents, you say they’re not accidents. Well, according to the scientific community they are accidents. I don’t think your determination carries more weight. In short, people don’t want nuclear power because of the risk, however remote the possibility of a serious accident might be. You won’t be convincing anybody otherwise.
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j4605tk wrote
Good day to you.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments