1031
nuclear (mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

You get much more radiation and excess deaths from Coal and Natural gas plants than Fukushima and Chernobyl, it's just that it's not as obvious as it happens slowly over time.

In fact there are more deaths caused by wind energy sources than nuclear energy sources.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago

There was still 164,000 people who needed to evacuate 230 square miles. The land is contaminated and cleanup is proving difficult. Japan will be dealing with the environmental impact for a century I'd wager.

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This one says, now it's only 27 square kilometers ( fuck your stupid ass miles) https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/14/asia/japan-fukushima-katsurao-village-return-intl-hnk/index.html

And this is from 2022

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago

I think you misunderstood what was written:

The Katsurao village official said about 337 square kilometers of land in seven Fukushima municipalities are deemed “difficult-to-return” zones. Of those, just 27 square kilometers in six of the same municipalities are specified reconstruction zones.

27 km² are the worst areas. The other 310km² are still "difficult-to-return".

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

You should read more of the article it's difficult to return to because even though it's save ( the radiation level is less than 2 CT scans a year ) people worry about the radiation, have built lives elsewhere.

[-] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

Look up fly ash storage ponds. That's just normal coal usage. Then look up fly ash spills. Then look up how much radioactive material is released into the atmosphere each year from burning coal. Compare that to the estimated amounts of radioactive material released into the environment from all the nuclear plant accidents, and tell me we still wouldn't be better off switching all coal off and using nuclear.

Now, we don't really have to do that, because we have other options now. But we definitely should have used more nuclear 50 years ago, just for the reduced cost of human lives.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago

At what point am I supporting coal? Totally irrelevant

I'm saying Fukushima was an ecological disaster. Thankfully very few people died, but to only focus on that minimises the impact of the event. If you're going to say Fukushima wasn't that bad, you can't just cherry pick at the impacts.

Is nuclear better than fossil fuels? Yes. But that was an argument for the 80s. The time for nuclear was 50 years ago. It didn't happen.

what do they call all the waste mining material? The kind of shit that they leave in huge piles, to get rained on, which leeches all kinds of fun shit into the ground?

oh right, they call them tailings. Surely we've never seen mass ecological fallout from tailings getting into, let's say, a river.

this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
1031 points (96.8% liked)

Science Memes

11441 readers
1667 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS