Nuclear is one of the safest energy sources, contrary to public belief.

submitted by useless_aether from (i.redd.it)

all 18 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]astronautrob 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Nuclear energy is of course very safe till it's not. Look at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. They still are dumping radioactive waste in the Pacific. They still don't have it under control. So yes nuclear energy is safe but when something goes wrong it goes really wrong. That's not the case so much with other forms of energy. A coal plant blowing up is not going to possibly wipe out the entire population, etc. The consequences of a nuclear accident are much greater than any of the other forms of energy listed on this chart. So maybe a better way to look at it would be possible deaths or degrees of destruction if something were to happen. On top of that most of these other forms of energy have been around a lot longer so it would make sense they would have higher deaths just because.

[–]useless_aether[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Galen Winsor - The Nuclear Scare Scam

[–]astronautrob 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Look here's a great thought experiment/example. Think of a graph with certain weapons on it. Bullets, rockets, bayonets, mines, swords, pikes, w.e, etc., Etc. This list would also include nuclear bombs right? That graph would probably look a lot similar. Maybe swords, pikes etc. on top. Maybe bullets and rockets outpace those things. But my point is nuclear bombs would probably be waaaaay at the bottom right? Are they safer than other weapons? Idt anyone would say they were. I think that's a good analogy to this graph. Yes nuclear power has been safer over time, which is one way to measure "safety", but the amount of damage it can do has to be taken in to account.

[–]astronautrob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No thank you. Do you have any sourced articles? I don't know how anyone could refute the things that have happened and are continuing to happen in Japan. That was one nuclear plant, just one. It crazy to think if something like that happened to say 5 plants across the globe. Again I think it's about degrees of danger or destruction, not just historical total deaths.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Think about how many times the government and media have lied to you. Why is this time any different?

I START from the position they are lying.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree, sort of. We're told a LOT of misinformation, so why should information on radiation be much different?

Also, check out /s/Energy and other comments under this post referring to Thorium.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I think it's like plane crashes vs car crashes.

A plane crash is a highly dramatic event that the media focuses on, that kills hundreds of people. A car crash kills 1-5 people, but happens much more often, and you are far more likely to die from driving, even on a per-mile basis. But fear of dying in planes is much more common, because it's so much more dramatic, and the media focuses on it so much more. So the fear is bigger, even though the danger is smaller.

I think nuclear plants are a similar thing.

Although thorium reactors might be even better, the thorium waste stops being radioactive in a matter of months instead of centuries like uranium does.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Thorium is (not) the bomb!

[–]Thorium_Reactor 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Fuck yeah!

[–]Zahn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Name checks out.

[–]CompleteDoubterII 0 insightful - 2 fun0 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Is that an Evangelion reference?

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Not that I'm aware of. It's a reference to the fact that you can't make nuclear weapons from Thorium, but you can make Thorium Nuclear Molten Salt Reactors which are actually safe and won't melt down. IMO, every city or town should have one.

[–]useless_aether[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

yes, but iirc they can't make atomic bombs with thorium reactors..

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Yes exactly, that's why thorium research is 40 years behind uranium research.

[–]useless_aether[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

i think china built a thorium reactor recently

https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/08/chinas-research-into-thorium-will-have-implications-for-nuclear-energy-in-the-united-states/

annoying :-)

[–]Robin 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, too clean. It's about energy, not radioisotope production...

[–]CompleteDoubterII 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why is this in the climate skeptics sub? It doesn't actually make a point against anthropnogenic global warming.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. IMO, it should be under /s/Energy.