1018

submitted 4 days ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

153 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days 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 3 days 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.

[-] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days 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 2 days 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)