"Just stop oil"

I am definitely not getting involved in the handbags.... and i know you didnt ask me...... but to stick my beak in.

Even tho i accept we need nuclear, imo the dangers are

1) the direct human element - terrorism / nutter employee doing something deliberate.
2) act of war, either deliberate or accidental damage
3) act of "god" earthquake etc

(4) then there is the waste............ yes there isnt much, but what there is will be problematic for years.

IF the odds were at a casino they would be brilliant. the chances of "losing" are incredibly small.... but the problem is IF there is a disaster, small chance as may be, it is potentially catastrophic.

So whilst i personally see the need for nuclear and think the risks are worth it, imo you have to respect the view of those who think we do not have the right to make that call.

none of the (4) points above even touch on unexpected failure.... and even the safest system CAN fail.

It would be interesting to see if there is a greater risk from taking a vaccine than from nuclear power. I would hazard a guess to say there is, which is interesting when you consider how willing people were to be vaccinated (baring the head-banger anti-vax crowd ofc).

*Edit* Without having actually looked at the data, my gut feeling says that many, many more people have died over the years due to vaccine complications than have ever died due to nuclear power.
 
Last edited:
most of that comes from ignorance though, I’d far sooner live near a nuclear power station than a coal/biomas/gas plant.

That said I’d rather live next to a wind turbine than a nuclear power plant.
 
most of that comes from ignorance though, I’d far sooner live near a nuclear power station than a coal/biomas/gas plant.

That said I’d rather live next to a wind turbine than a nuclear power plant.

I'd rather the wind turbines were offshore where they are more efficient and consistent in their power delivery.

Building them onshore is in most cases just another cheap-out, short-term solution (obviously exceptions apply for certain areas / terrain such as parts of Scotland which have some pretty consistent wind farm output)

Hell, I'd rather the nuclear power plants were offshore too, on their own little island(s), as to again minimize the risk to "civilization" but that is often cost-prohibitive.
 
It would be interesting to see if there is a greater risk from taking a vaccine than from nuclear power. I would hazard a guess to say there is, which is interesting when you consider how willing people were to be vaccinated (baring the head-banger anti-vax crowd ofc).

*Edit* Without having actually looked at the data, my gut feeling says that many, many more people have died over the years due to vaccine complications than have ever died due to nuclear power.
the 2 are wholely different and i dont think you can compare the 2. Given the very real risk of most illnesses that vaccines are made for, nowadays the vaccine is always safer than the disease

Add to that a vaccine is a decision you make for yourself................ IF i choose to take a vaccine and it kills me, it kills me. Its unfortunate but that was my decision (I am deliberately not going down the rabbit hole of the eithics of a person who doesnt take a vaccine then goes on to spread an illness and potentially kill lots of other people.)..

IF a nuclear power station is built and blows up, it doesnt just kill those who made use of its power...... it also kills the off the grid tree huggers who take no benefit from nuclear power and it makes huge areas potentially unhabitable for many many years.
 
most of that comes from ignorance though,
does it tho?
are you saying there is zero chance of anything bad happening at Zaporizhzhia power plant at the moment?

(i would rather not live next to any power station to be honest, but sure, i would take nuclear on my doorstep over any fossil fuel one.......... tho i would have no problem having a wind turbine or 2 at the top of the hill in my town.
 
Last edited:
does it tho?
are you saying there is zero chance of anything bad happening at Zaporizhzhia power plant at the moment?
Yes, the vast majority of the population do not understand how it works and why it’s safe.

As above as well, hardly anyone knows what is actually happening on the ground in Ukraine either, it’s fallen out of the mainstream news cycle.
 
the 2 are wholely different and i dont think you can compare the 2. Given the very real risk of most illnesses that vaccines are made for, nowadays the vaccine is always safer than the disease

Add to that a vaccine is a decision you make for yourself................ IF i choose to take a vaccine and it kills me, it kills me. Its unfortunate but that was my decision (I am deliberately not going down the rabbit hole of the eithics of a person who doesnt take a vaccine then goes on to spread an illness and potentially kill lots of other people.)..

IF a nuclear power station is built and blows up, it doesnt just kill those who made use of its power...... it also kills the off the grid tree huggers who take no benefit from nuclear power and it makes huge areas potentially unhabitable for many many years.

I'm not so sure they are wholey different in the way you describe.

Given the very real risk of collapse of society with a lack of electrical power, or just the very real risk of a person dying due to the cold with a lack of electrical power, I would say that reliable energy generation is equally as vital as vaccines for diseases.

To say "nowadays the vaccine is always safer than the disease" is a very easy way to gloss over just how many have died to get to that stage... Yet people are all too willing to repeatedly point that out when it comes to Nuclear Power. (*Edit* - Not saying you're doing such intentionally btw :) )

IF a vaccine fails catastrophically and it isn't caught in time, it has the risk to kill millions - significantly more than a Nuclear Power Plant going all "Chernobyl" (bare in mind, Fukashima is a far more accurate representation of a failure of a Nuclear Reactor)
 
Last edited:
I'm not so sure they are wholey different in the way you describe.

Given the very real risk of collapse of society with a lack of electrical power, or just the very real risk of a person dying due to the cold with a lack of electrical power, I would say that reliable energy generation is equally as vital as vaccines for diseases.

To say "nowadays the vaccine is always safer than the disease" is a very easy way to gloss over just how many have died to get to that stage... Yet people are all too willing to repeatedly point that out when it comes to Nuclear Power.

IF a vaccine fails catastrophically and it isn't caught in time, it has the risk to kill millions - significantly more than a Nuclear Power Plant going all "Chernobyl" (bare in mind, Fukashima is a far more accurate representation of a failure of a Nuclear Reactor)
I dare say FAR more lives have been saved by the smallpox vaccine than the deaths directly from all vaccines put together.


i was about to mention Fukashima ............ i dont know enough about it and if you guys want to claim the wiki (which is not always accurate) is totally wrong, i cant dispute that
but according to the wiki

I just dont see how ZERO risk as mentioned in another post above groks with the below (and note i say this as someone who supports nuclear)

April 9, 2013z​

Radioactive water leaked from the storage units, contaminating the soil and water nearby. The leak was controlled and stored in a contained area. Contaminated water continues to accumulate at the plant, where it is filtered to remove most but not all radioactive particles.[57]


July 9, 2013​

TEPCO officials reported that radioactive caesium was 90 times higher than it was 3 days prior (July 6), and that it may spread into the Pacific Ocean. TEPCO reported that the caesium-134 levels in the well water were measured at 9 kilobecquerel per liter, 150 times the legal level, while Caesium-137 was measured at 18 kilobecquerel per liter, 200 times the permitted level.[citation needed]

August 7, 2013​

Japanese officials said highly radioactive water was leaking from Fukushima Daiichi into the Pacific Ocean at a rate of 300 tons (about 272 metric tons) per day. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ordered government officials to step in.[58]

April 12, 2016​

Melted reactors were being cooled down with 300 tonnes of water each day.[citation needed]

September 10, 2019​

Since the plant was destroyed by the earthquake and tsunami in 2011, TEPCO has continued to pump water onto the melted-down fuel cores to prevent them from once again overheating. This contaminated cooling water has collected on the site, where more than 1 million tons has been stored in hundreds of tall steel tanks. Large filtration systems are used to clean this water of most of its radioactive contaminants, but they cannot remove tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. As the tritium-contaminated water continues to accumulate, the plant operator says the site will run out of space to build more tanks by 2022, when it will have to dump the radioactive water directly into the Pacific Ocean. It is not known yet how much water will be released by TEPCO, which will dilute the water first.[59]

April 13, 2021​

Main article: Discharge of radioactive water of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Japan's government approved the release of "treated" radioactive water from the plant into the Pacific Ocean – beginning in 2023 – over the course of an estimated 40 years.[5]
 
Last edited:
I am definitely not getting involved in the handbags.... and i know you didnt ask me...... but to stick my beak in.

Even tho i accept we need nuclear, imo the dangers are

1) the direct human element - terrorism / nutter employee doing something deliberate.
2) act of war, either deliberate or accidental damage
3) act of "god" earthquake etc

(4) then there is the waste............ yes there isnt much, but what there is will be problematic for years.

IF the odds were at a casino they would be brilliant. the chances of "losing" are incredibly small.... but the problem is IF there is a disaster, small chance as may be, it is potentially catastrophic.

So whilst i personally see the need for nuclear and think the risks are worth it, imo you have to respect the view of those who think we do not have the right to make that call.

none of the (4) points above even touch on unexpected failure.... and even the safest system CAN fail.

Nice summary. Some people in here don't understand that it's not even a matter of IF but more of a WHEN.
 
I dare say FAR more lives have been saved by the smallpox vaccine than the deaths directly from all vaccines put together.


i was about to mention Fukashima ............ i dont know enough about it and if you guys want to claim the wiki (which is not always accurate) is totally wrong, i cant dispute that

I don't doubt that far more lives have been saved by most vaccines than have ever been taken by them.

I also don't doubt that so many more lives than that have effectively been "saved" by reliable, clean power generation which has both afforded them heating and cleaner air, which both resulted in literally millions of deaths not happening.

The problem however is that it is very hard to directly measure or graph such a statement.

With diseases we have been able to track their deathrate over time and seen the effect of the vaccines, but to my knowledge that kind of data simply does not exist to be able to accurately reflect just how many people have not died due to either directly benefiting from electricity generation, or by avoiding the previous pollution causing methods of generation (smog, leading to respiratory problems and shortened life expectancy)
 
Last edited:
Nice summary. Some people in here don't understand that it's not even a matter of IF but more of a WHEN.

No, we understand it just fine.. better than you do, I have no doubt in that.

The difference is, we're not acting like hysterical Karen's with a total lack of understanding of how nuclear reactors operate, how safe they can be and the different designs (and fuel types) that can be used to make a meltdown a technical impossibility (See previous comments re: Thorium Reactors).

We recognize the infinitesimally small chance of a total failure to be "worth the risk" for the decades of reliable, clean power a Nuclear Plant can provide, Especially if you locate them in geographically inhospitable regions of the UK Coastline where *nobody* lives to put at risk in the first place.

We also understand that what happened at Chernobyl is quite simply totally impossible with modern reactor designs and safeguards.
 
Last edited:
Not sure, can you post links to the source data you used to come to your conclusion please? Thanks :)
"Finally, we have solar and wind. A small number of people die in accidents in supply chains – ranging from helicopter collisions with turbines; fires during the installation of turbines or panels; and drownings on offshore wind sites."

Do you have a different source?
 
"Finally, we have solar and wind. A small number of people die in accidents in supply chains – ranging from helicopter collisions with turbines; fires during the installation of turbines or panels; and drownings on offshore wind sites."

Do you have a different source?
No as i wasn't making the original statement but thanks though, will have a read :)
 
Back
Top Bottom