You said “it’s much safer” in your original comment, which you removed in the edit.
The source you’ve linked shows it’s marginally safer on a death per KW/h rate, true, while being substantially more expensive and comes with the unsolved problem of dealing with toxic waste.
It’s 25% safer, which is closer to “much” safer than “marginally” safer in my mind, but yes I decided it’s better to let the data speak for itself and avoid such subjective qualifiers.
It is more expensive, which is why I prefer wind and solar to nuclear, but we were talking about safety specifically, not which tech is “better overall”.
How many cubic feet of nuclear waste do you think there is? I’m curious. Cause currently, all of the waste America has EVER created, would fill 1 football field about 30 feet high.
Yes. Wind turbines maintenance is a dangerous job that sometimes results in injury or death. Nuclear power is safer, per kWh.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
It’s not, a person has already provided a study proving you wrong.
Edit: You’ve changed your comment completely with that edit.
I provided a source, you said “it’s not”. Forgive me if I ignore your comment unless you also provide a source.
You said “it’s much safer” in your original comment, which you removed in the edit.
The source you’ve linked shows it’s marginally safer on a death per KW/h rate, true, while being substantially more expensive and comes with the unsolved problem of dealing with toxic waste.
It’s 25% safer, which is closer to “much” safer than “marginally” safer in my mind, but yes I decided it’s better to let the data speak for itself and avoid such subjective qualifiers.
It is more expensive, which is why I prefer wind and solar to nuclear, but we were talking about safety specifically, not which tech is “better overall”.
How many cubic feet of nuclear waste do you think there is? I’m curious. Cause currently, all of the waste America has EVER created, would fill 1 football field about 30 feet high.