this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2157 points (94.4% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2558 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee -4 points 1 year ago (11 children)

When she can tell me a practical, long-term, solution to nuclear waste, demonstrate that a nuclear bomb is not a military target, sure.

We just saw Japan release nuclear waste into the ocean for lack of a solution (to the waste from a fucking nuclear disaster) , don't tell me it's not a problem.

Yes I know coal emits radioactive waste, I'm not a coal advocate.

[–] oct_opus@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Here are few things to consider:

  • The vast majority of nuclear waste is not highly radioactive. Over 90% of it is low-level waste. As we progresses we're finding better ways to manage and reduce this or even recycling it.
  • The Fukushima incident though unfortunate and a reminder to improve safety standards didn't result in any direct fatalities due to radiation. In fact, the amount of radioactivity released into the ocean was 0 when you look at the vastness of the Pacific and the dilution. The oceans already contain a considerable amount of natural radiation and the added amount from the incident, though not better than nothing is a drop in the ocean size bucket.
  • Air pollution from coal plants contributes to numerous premature deaths yearly with some estimates in the hundreds of thousands globally. This is far more concerning than the potential risks posed by nuclear energy especially when managed with modern safety standards. Just see Fukushima.
  • As for nuclear plants being military targets, any infrastructure can become a target in wartime, dams, chemical plants or any other energy installations. The key is to ensure safety and security measures.
[–] psychic717@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thank you, could not have said it better. Nuclear is the way forward, at least until fusion energy is viable.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

The vast majority of nuclear waste is not highly radioactive. Over 90% of it is low-level waste. As we progresses we’re finding better ways to manage and reduce this or even recycling it.

Even still, it still needs to be transported, stored in specialized facilities, etc. All that transport and resource usage isn't free and must be considered as part of the cost of nuclear.

The Fukushima incident though unfortunate and a reminder to improve safety standards didn’t result in any direct fatalities due to radiation.

Direct fatalities is a poor metric for nuclear safety.

As for nuclear plants being military targets, any infrastructure can become a target in wartime, dams, chemical plants or any other energy installations. The key is to ensure safety and security measures.

Those are great arguments for not doing those things as well. These are things that massive unsustainable human populations make use of and are not necessary to thriving human populations.

load more comments (8 replies)