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

submitted by useless_aether from (i.redd.it)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]astronautrob 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 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 -  (1 child)

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.