Nuclear Power Is On the Brink Of a $1 Trillion Resurgence

I suppose you could die from radioactive waste if you A) broke into the secured facility where it's being processed and swallowed some.
or B) blast mined through concrete in the places where it's been buried, then cut your way through containment vessels using acetylene cutting gear then eat some
when I say "secured", facilities in the UK have a small army guarding them. along with a direct line to the army.
(I don't know about facilities elsewhere but I bet it's similar levels of security). It's probably easier to break into a military base.
 

intel-bank

Active member
German Green party put Chernobyl deaths at around 200,000. many scientists agree that this figure is wildly inflated beyond any reasonable measure, even if this figure was accurate nuclear would still be safer than coal.
Yeaa, as bad as it sounds, I would say cancer deaths down the road are likely inflated and less than relevant. I guess its a moral conundrum - are the deaths of people 10,20 years after an accident really as relevant to the discussion? As those deaths, unlike coal, are "put to use" and we learn how to be safer about it. And yet they still got to live a few more years. Coal, people die, we know it, we say "ah, but you know occasionally greed [most common reason for meltdowns] leads to meltdowns which kill less than 50 people at the time of the accidents, and maybbbee kills a few thousand over the course of a generation. Guess well just keep burning blood oil."
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
Well, hold a bucket of nuclear waste and a bucket of coal and you tell me which is more dangerous.

I am not talking about overall deaths. By that standard, nuclear weapons are safer than knives.

I am talking about potential disaster when something goes wrong.
 
Well, hold a bucket of nuclear waste and a bucket of coal and you tell me which is more dangerous.

I am not talking about overall deaths. By that standard, nuclear weapons are safer than knives.

I am talking about potential disaster when something goes wrong.
To quote Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I agree that overall deaths can be misleading, so lets look at deaths per unit of electricity produced.
You'll find that coal kills a lot more per kWh than nuclear. Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...on-kWh-produced-Source-Updated_tbl2_272406182 . Surely a thousand people dying in a very unlikely nuclear accident would be preferable than the likely chance of millions dying to coal emissions.
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
To quote Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I agree that overall deaths can be misleading, so lets look at deaths per unit of electricity produced.
You'll find that coal kills a lot more per kWh than nuclear. Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...on-kWh-produced-Source-Updated_tbl2_272406182 . Surely a thousand people dying in a very unlikely nuclear accident would be preferable than the likely chance of millions dying to coal emissions.
The problem with those stats is that they are suspect. Truly we don't know the cause of death. WHO has an agenda, so it is in their interest to "find" a relation.

Again, not arguing against nuclear power. Just not pretending it doesn't have the potential for disaster.
 

iron_eagl

Member
Well, hold a bucket of nuclear waste and a bucket of coal and you tell me which is more dangerous.

I am not talking about overall deaths. By that standard, nuclear weapons are safer than knives.

I am talking about potential disaster when something goes wrong.
You're comparing apples to oranges - try a couple grams of nuclear waste vs. TONS of fly ash, compare energy production to energy production. Turns out the fly ash emits more radiation.

EDIT:
For a source, this answer on Skeptics Stack Exchange calculates the total radioactive waste per TWh generated by nuclear vs. coal - nuclear currently generates slightly more waste, but as it is subject to much more strict regulations, the actual release to environment is tiny by comparison.
 
Last edited:

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
This is very true. Coal plants emits thousands of times more radiation into the air and surrounding environment then Nuclear Power has ever done in history.
And that radiation is spread over a very large area, making for very tiny absorbed doses per hour. Try that with a nuclear accident.
 

DarkNoon

Dedicated Moderator
Staff member
And that radiation is spread over a very large area, making for very tiny absorbed doses per hour. Try that with a nuclear accident.
Coal is actively emitting radiation at a constant rate into the environment. Prolonged exposure to anything toxic or radioactive can and is fatal for some near fossil fuel power plants. Any prolonged exposure even in small amounts over time has negative effects. This is why there are limits to how long astronauts can be in space for their entire lifetime due to prolonged exposure over time that can lead to seriously fatal health issues.

But with nuclear no radiation is emitted in the environment. In fact cities with nuclear power plants have lower radiation levels in them because there are no fossil fuel power plants in them burning toxic radioactive materials into the environment.

You keep saying potentially dangerous which is hypothetical. But accidents are super extremely rare and unlikely. Even with the very tiny miniscute threat of a nuclear accident it is still hands down the most safest form of energy. You are 1 million times more likely to die falling out of your own bed then a nuclear accident.
 

DarkNoon

Dedicated Moderator
Staff member
Truly we don't know the cause of death. WHO has an agenda
These are facts and data not by WHO. Many reputable independent studies and scientists from here to around the world have found this to be self evident.

Longterm exposure to burning fossil fuels or anything toxic/radioactive leads to health issues and sometimes fatal diseases that one normally wouldn't get in a clean environment. True any number is going to be hypothetical but no refuting it is a health hazard for those living near them.

Again small prolonged exposure overtime even through many decades of small doses of radiation is bad and should be a given. That's why astronauts are given a limit to how much they can be in space for their entire life. I think once a astronaut reaches 1500 sum hours of space time they are no longer able to go to space anymore due to possible health effects from small prolonged exposure to radiation over many years.
 
Last edited:

intel-bank

Active member
Coal is actively emitting radiation at a constant rate into the environment.
Not to mention that you can evacuate the area of a nuclear accident with suprisingly few casualties(as has been the case for all nuclear accidents to date), you cant evacuate people from the widespread radiatioactivity (not to mention all the non-radioactive toxins and carcinogens and all the like) of coal plants.
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
These are facts and data not by WHO.
The data sheet listed says the source is WHO.

Longterm exposure to burning fossil fuels or anything toxic/radioactive leads to health issues and sometimes fatal diseases that one normally wouldn't get in a clean environment.
Well, sure, anything long term is hazardous.

A nuclear accident spewing out radiation takes far less time than a lifetime to affect you.

Everyone seems to be making irrelevant comparisons.

No one evacuated when a coal mine collapsed. A lot of people evacuated when Fukushima had problems.

An explosion at a solar plant will kill a lot fewer people than an explosion at a nuclear plant.
 
Top