this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
97 points (94.5% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4627 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

57 major accidents-

It should be said that most of our accidents don’t result in Chernobyl like death tolls, but then, Chernobyl is in a class all its own.

As bad as TMI was, and it’s the first one that came to my mind, it didn’t have any direct deaths. It was ridiculously close to having a massive death toll, and it cost like 2 billion to clean up over… decades…?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are industrial accidents, like fossil fuel plants catching fire and/or exploding, with more casualties than every nuclear 'disaster' combined.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure people kill more people than any other cause combined.

Could be wrong. Depends if you count manufactured famine and healthcare crises as part of that.

We should get off fossil fuels, but I don’t see nuclear as a way of doing that. Solar, wind, and hydro (tidal is interesting. Micro hydro could have uses without destroying entire ecosystems.)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

.you just can’t get around needing consistent base load capacity. I wonder if the cost of a few GWh of batteries or complicated pumped dam/lake systems is reported in solar/wind figures to make an apples-to-apples comparison.

maybe once we have a huge fleet of plugged in EV‘s serving as battery storage, variable sources will make sense as primary generation

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I'll be the one to point out that TMI is exactly what you want to happen in a "nuclear disaster". Nobody got seriously hurt that we know of, the problem was found and dealt with quickly once identified, and we've implemented TONS of extra safeties to make sure that can't happen again without massive alarms and Serious Lights. Could it have not happened at all? Absolutely. But in a disaster, it's the perfect "disaster" - nobody died, nobody got seriously injured directly, the plant got screwed up, and $2b to clean up ANY disaster site is honestly pretty damn cheap when we're talking radioactive heavy metal remediation.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The BP Deepwater Horizon spill cost like $60B to clean up, so even with inflation $2B is comparatively small.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Radioactive materials (particularly gases,) were released so, it’s not quite perfect, but yes. TMI was much, much to be preferred over other possible outcomes of the accident.