• Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Even without oil spills. The fossil fuel method of dealing with waste is to vent it into the atmosphere. Nuclear only does that when something goes very wrong, and even then it causes significantly fewer fatalities.

      You could have a Chernobyl every single day and still kill fewer people than coal and oil.

    • starlinguk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Why do you think that those against nuclear energy are for fossil fuels? My building has solar panels, and backup power comes from either wind turbines or the hydraulic dam down the river.

    • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The safety aspects alone SHOULD be enough to convince people, yet here we are.

      The difference between nuclear-power- related disasters and fossil fuel related disasters is astronomical.

      And honestly the amount of radioactive isotopes that get spewed out from burning coal day in day out for decades on end absolutely dwarfs the amount of radioactivity released from nuclear disasters.

        • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          And nobody suggested it did.

          But the argument of “it’s more unsafe” doesn’t apply, that was my whole point.

          If one thing is less unsafe than another, why the fuck WOULDN’T you want to switch the the DEMONSTRABLY LESS UNSAFE THING