Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

basscycles t1_iubxsz3 wrote

Reply to comment by catjam25 in Poland chooses US to build its first nuclear power plant by Vegeta9001

1 in a hundred good odds? BTW it also ignores the other accidents that have occurred some with huge consequences, some without much consequence and some that are buried.

−38

catjam25 t1_iubyrk1 wrote

You’re leaving out the context that nuclear energy is the safest form of electricity that there is when you account for related deaths. You can’t just assert that there are “buried” incidents with no evidence. Nuclear is the clear path forward if we are thinking pragmatically about going carbon neutral.

27

basscycles t1_iuc9sqs wrote

>You can’t just assert that there are “buried” incidents with no evidence.

In 1957, the Mayak plant was the site of a major disaster, one of many other such accidents, releasing more radioactive contamination than Chernobyl.[citation needed] An improperly stored underground tank of high-level liquid nuclear waste exploded, contaminating thousands of square kilometers of land, now known as the Eastern Ural Radioactive Trace (EURT). The matter was covered up, and few either inside or outside Russia were aware of the full scope of the disaster until 1980.[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

"Nuclear is the clear path forward if we are thinking pragmatically about going carbon neutral." Maybe for Poland and if you live where there isn't much sun, wind, geothermal or hydro possibilities.

−12

Blazecan t1_iucbv2h wrote

I thought we were talking about US nuclear stuff. If we’re talking Soviet Union, all I can say is they really don’t care about their reactors do they

10

catjam25 t1_iueciga wrote

Wait. You can’t just flip from talking about US reactors to talking about USSR reactors. We aren’t talking about the USSR.

Edit: the article you linked isn’t even about a nuclear energy plant. It’s about a weapons grade plutonium manufacturing plant.

3

basscycles t1_iuegmq1 wrote

I was talking about nuclear energy around the world, nowhere did I specify American reactors. BTW Fukushima had American designed reactors and 3 mile was in the USA.

0

catjam25 t1_iuelesg wrote

Well, even in the context of all nuclear reactors you are still wrong. They are still overwhelmingly safe compared to any other form of electricity production. Original comment was talking about American reactors.

2

basscycles t1_iuepl7r wrote

Yes I've heard that solar kills installers that fall, I guess wind has similar dangers, though to the general public the chance of health effects from them is virtually non existent.

1

catjam25 t1_iuesqn7 wrote

Solar and wind are perfectly fine but they aren’t on-demand and cannot fully replace all of our conventional energy needs. What happens when the wind stops blowing or it’s a particular time of year where the sun doesn’t shine as much? You would have to harvest and store that energy in advance to release it to the grid when it’s needed. Our battery tech isn’t where it needs to be to address this problem. You’re ignoring that the alternative to not going nuclear is to continue down the path of fossil fuels like natural gas which contribute to carbon pollution.

1

Antietam_ t1_iubz982 wrote

You could say this about any energy source. Nuclear energy is one of the safest forms of energy.

8