• Umbrias@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Uncritically lumping Chernobyl in with TMI and fukushima loses you all credibility.

    Chernobyl, where a critically mismanaged and politically nigh guaranteed failed emergency response to a similarly guaranteed foreseen design failure leading to hundreds of thousands of dosed people across all of Europe

    … Compared to events largely which have had no detectable radiological health effects on non workers anywhere.

    The nuclear industry is far and away the safest and most scrutinized of any industry, try to be honest when you’re making arguments.

    The reason people don’t want to put nuclear facilities in convenient places is paranoia.

    Complaining about Joshua trees for this is somewhat silly, it’s not one or the other, but the environmental impact is worth discussing.

    • @Umbrias @SirBoostALot @usa The Joshua trees are relevant because it’s an indictment of the system that produces the incentives that make destroying a forest of them a good business plan. We have the technology to safely generate plenty of reliable, clean electricity nearby to where people will use it. Instead, we go out into the desert and then pick one of the worst spots in the desert just to cheaply conjure up some renewable energy credits and call it good for the environment. It’s sickening.

      • SirBoostALot@hear-me.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        @fathermcgruder @Umbrias @usa And where I disagree with you vehemently is on the “safely” part. I don’t want to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant, and I think a lot of people feel the same way. I know you believe that Chernobyl and Fukushima were one off disasters that could not possibly happen in North America, but if you are wrong a whole lot of people could die very painful deaths, or very slow and painful deaths depending on the exposure level.

        The Joshua trees are kind of a red herring; they are only incidental to the issue, and honestly few people actually care about them except perhaps those living in that area (and I’m not saying that is a good thing, but I’m just saying that most people would not think them a very desirable tree). We can have cheap, safe energy from the sun and wind but some people don’t like that and would prefer to take the chance of exposing potentially millions of people to radiation sickness. THAT is what is sickening.

        By the way, do you have any financial interest in, or are you employed by the nuclear power industry? There are not that many people who want to see more nuke plants built so I’m wonder what your reasons are for being so pushy about this.

        • @SirBoostALot @Umbrias @usa I have no affiliation with the nuclear power industry. I just think global warming is an important problem that cannot be solved by wind and solar power. The risks associated with nuclear power are very small and completely outweighed by the benefits.

          The Joshua trees are not a red herring. Their sacrifice is completely unnecessary and it exemplifies the insanity of our clean energy policies.