Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(38,099 posts)
3. Exactly equivalent. Carrying on about Fukushima in particular is abysmally stupid...
Sun Jul 17, 2022, 02:31 PM
Jul 2022

...in the context of the destruction of the planetary atmosphere and its effects.

Twenty thousand people died from seawater in the Sendai earthquake. They were so killed because they lived in a coastal city.

I have yet to see an anti-nuke suggest that we should ban coastal cities, even though these people are doing everything with the power of their ignorance to make coastal cities less safe by deprioritizing climate change.

There is no evidence, zero, that radiation released by the reactors destroyed in the same event killed as many people as will die from dangerous fossil fuel waste, aka "air pollution" in the next hour, about 800 people at a death rate of around 7 million people per year.

Anyone, and I do mean anyone who wants to carry on about Fukushima, and for that matter Chernobyl, has their head so far up their ass as to be extremely dangerous.

They are, frankly, immoral.

Nuclear energy saves lives even when one includes all three reactor failures in which radiation was released to the environment.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

It follows that the anti-nuke mentality kills people.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Carry on cbabe Jul 2022 #1
Upton Sinclair stated it so well: ZZenith Jul 2022 #2
An apt criticism of natural gas dependent "renewable energy" schemes, perhaps? hunter Jul 2022 #5
Exactly equivalent. Carrying on about Fukushima in particular is abysmally stupid... NNadir Jul 2022 #3
Well allow me to be the first localroger Jul 2022 #8
I have no use, zero, for carrying on about Three Mile Island, nor do I have any use for doing... NNadir Jul 2022 #10
I do not have an "absurd fear" of radioactive materials. I have respect for them. localroger Jul 2022 #12
So your Dad was a scientist? You did a high school project?. NNadir Jul 2022 #15
I see you missed the part where I work in industry with high technology localroger Jul 2022 #16
I'm responsible for buying millions of dollars of high tech equipment. NNadir Jul 2022 #17
You see only what you want to see, and hear only what you want to hear localroger Jul 2022 #18
Is world total turbine capacity a small multiple of the Danish figure? 4dog Jul 2022 #4
It doesn't take too much spreadsheet work to estimate an answer to your question. NNadir Jul 2022 #7
Accidents are bad, but they are not the deal-killer with nuclear localroger Jul 2022 #6
Actually, the deal killer of "waste" should apply to dangerous fossil fuels, not used nuclear fuel. NNadir Jul 2022 #9
Excuse me but you do not seem to know what you are talking about localroger Jul 2022 #11
Really? I'm getting a lecture on nuclear fuels and fission physics? NNadir Jul 2022 #13
Well if you think I'm ignorant... localroger Jul 2022 #14
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»A Commentary on Failure, ...»Reply #3