That must be why it’s still advised to not collect and eat wild mushrooms in parts of southern Germany.
Comment on nuclear
Umbrias@beehaw.org 5 weeks agomeltdowns do not resemble bombs at all. nor are they really possible either.
Don_alForno@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Umbrias@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
did i claim chornobyl didnt have any effects or are you just searching for stuff to argue about?
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 5 weeks ago
On a world where everybody is effraid of nuclear power, station safety is really overboard, and nuclear is super safe.
If everyone accepted nuclear power the same way we accept cars, then you can be sure capitalism would cut corners on nuclear safety…
(Source: many of my clients are nuclear power plants people)
Umbrias@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
sure, like corners are cut in every industry including renewables (which have a higher accident rate even). yes a nationalized nuclear power program is less perversely incentivised. if you look at countries where nuc is accepted more you wont find insane accident rates nor are plants bombs.
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 5 weeks ago
I heard that Fukushima was problematic because non-engineers thought it would be easier cheaper?) to put some of the critical infrastructure near the sea rather than on the hill…
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
fukushima was problematic because literally everything in the chain of safety that should’ve happened, either didn’t or was ignored, due to callous stupidity.
If literally any one thing had gone differently, there’s a good chance it wouldn’t have been that bad.
Umbrias@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
that is believable, no structures should have been where fukushima was nor with the lacking tsunami protections it had.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
and yet, cars keep getting safer, and safer every year, they also keep getting larger, and more expensive and harder to repair, but they do get safer.
Interesting.
Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 5 weeks ago
To be complete, you can’t ignore the dangers of nuclear power plants in a war setting. It sucks but it is what it is.
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 5 weeks ago
To be honest, every large power generation systems is critical is a war setting… Don’t tell them about hydro dams!
Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 5 weeks ago
Critical? Yes but there are a few different kinds of critical. Critical to the power supply? Ofc. Critical as in potential environmental disaster? Some, dams are 1 example.
Sometimes transportation is the cause of the potential of an environmental disaster like gas pipes. Those are a potential wildfire. Tbh, badly maintained high voltage over the ground wires have caused huge disaster too.
Energy is dangerous by nature. But some are more abusable and have longer term consequences than others. In a war setting, you have to assume abuse and plan with the consequences in mind.https://…wikipedia.org/…/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclea… it is a reality.
Saleh@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Station safety is so overboard, that we only had like three meltdowns or so, and only some hundreds of thousands of people killed by premature cancer deaths as a result of them and some million or so permanently displaced.
But surely after the next event we will have learned and then it will be totally safe. Like they said after Three Miles Island. And like they said after Chernobyl. And like they said after Fukushima.
Umbrias@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
more like a few thousand ever, if you are really really conservative tens of thousand, though the methodology to get there is unscientific. tmi killed nobody, fukushima will have killed nobody. meanwhile people falling off roofs installing solar or accidents working on wind are much more common. keep doing solar and wind, but your perception about nuclear is wholly irrational and unfounded.
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
Chernobyl was a ridiculous level of negligence on the part of the technicians working at a plant with a very unsafe design.
Fukushima was a reasonably safe reactor design with terrible (and noted as such decades before the meltdown) site designs which could be described as “designed to fail”.
You could argue that lessons have been learned from both of those, and Three Mile Island, and safer designs are the result. Or you could argue that Fukushima clearly shows that people shouldn’t be involved in such high-risk projects because they will cut corners that will inevitably lead to disasters. If the second is your stance, take a look around. There are plenty of projects with similar risks in other fields all the time.
Saleh@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Then name three examples please, that have a Chernobyl level of risk.
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 5 weeks ago
Coal power plants release more radioactive waste in the environment than nuclear stations.
I’m not sure if this statistics includes meltdowns, but considering their rarity, it may still be true.
Saleh@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Which is why both technologies need to be abolished asap and replaced with cheaper and sustainable renewable energies.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
have we built and RBMK reactors since chernobyl? Have we built and confusing and badly maintained reactors since TMI (that weren’t legally operating btw) have we built any BWR reactors in bad places, with no concern for safety since fukushima?
Saleh@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
Did people during the concept and design phase of these anticipate them causing disasters?
Did the people who operate them adhere to best safety practices, maintenance and regulations?
Did the regulatory authorities ensure that there would be no disaster possible through enforcing said regulations, in particular regarding location specific concerns such as Tsunamis in Fukushima?
As long as you have the same human characters in the same economic structures in the same administrative structures, there is no reason to be confident, that these disasters will not happen again.