What is something that sounds 100% false but is actually 100% true?
What is something that sounds 100% false but is actually 100% true?
652 comments
-
Oh, I have two good ones:
- Nuclear power causes less deaths per energy unit produced than wind. (source
- You have slightly less radiation when living near a nuclear power plant, than living on an average place.
To explain the second: A major misconception is, that nuclear power plants are dangerous due to their radiation. No they aren't. The effect of radiation from the rocks in the ground and the surroundings is on average 50x more than what you get from the nuclear power plant and it's fuel cells. (source). Our body is very well capable of dealing with the constant background radiation all the time (e.g. DNA repairs). Near a power plant, the massive amounts of isolation and concrete will inhibit any background radiation coming from rocks from that direction to you. This means, that you'll actually get slightly less radiation, because the nuclear plant is there.
-
To this day, it’s been very hard to find out, if at all any people have even died to Fukushima radiation (ans not other sources such as tsunami/earthquake/etc.)
Truly no offense, but this is sort of burying the lede on Nuclear Power risks. Mathmatically coal releases more radiation - no question. It's also hard to pin down how many died due to Fukushima for ver good reasons: Correlation might be easy, but determining cause is ultra tough and no right-minded scientist would say it without overwhelming evidence (like they had something "hot" that fell on their roof and didn't know it for a long time). Also? They aren't dead yet. So we look to statistical life span models crossing multiple factors (proximity, time of exposure, contaminated environments and try to pin down cancer clusters attributable, and people can live for decades, etc....
The problem is that people rightly are concerned that in both Fukushima and Chernobyl (and 3 Mile for that matter) unforseen circumstances could have been catastrophically worse. You blow up a coal plant? You expose a region locally to it and it's probably "meh". You blow up a nuclear plant, and you get melt down corium hitting ground water or sea water with direct exposure to fissioning material and all the sudden you have entire nations at risk for subsequent spewing of hot material that will contaminate food supplies, water resevoirs, and linger on surfaces and be pulled into our lungs once it's in the dirt. Radioactive matieral is FAR more dangerous inside the body when you eat plants and animals that are exposed and pull it from the ground. Even cleaning down every surface, eventually you'll get some of it airborn to be breathed into our lungs again with wind storms, flooding and other natural erosion. The consequences are exponentially higher with Nuclear accidents and ignoring that is whitewashing. And that's not even getting into contamination from fuel enrichment, cooling ponds/pools leaking water, or the fact that it will take 30-40 years to clean up Fukushima (and they aren't sure how exactly that will happen and there could be another tsunami). Probably hundreds to try to clean up and contain Chernobyl - and given the current state of affairs we may find out even worse.
BTW, I'm pro-nuclear. Thorium salts seem a good way to go and we probably would already have these if not for the nuclear arms race making nations hungry for plutonium. Please don't short sell everyone's intelligence because you can claim "only" a handful of people died due to Fukushima. Direct death is only one facet. Lives were disrupted (and displaced) and for a while there, the impacts spread to the US across the Pacific and there were discussions of evacuating like 1/3 of Japan's population outside an exclusion zone. You can be pro nuclear while still acknowledging that some fears are real and well founded, and unfortunately the industry has proven gaps in safety that make it harder and harder to argue when we have Solar and Wind and rapidly ramping power storage. Nuclear is likely to simply be outcompeted over time (just like Coal and NG).
-
Iv read about Thorium the last 3-4 years and it seems so promising. Im really disapointed that the push is not greater as it would make everything a lot more safe.
-
-
Additional fun fact. There has been a lot of research and activity dedicated to potentially switch coal power plants to nuclear. Currently, they cannot do it, because the coal plants and all the equipment associated produces far more radiation than regulations allow a nuclear plant to emit.
Therefore, unless they could find a practical way to decontaminate the radiation away from existing coal equipment, or regulations change for transformed plants, they can't do it.
-
Did you know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's only mandate is to ensure the safety of nuclear power, not to promote its implementation. Many regulatory bodies have a dual mandate to stop them from just shutting down what they're supposed to regulate.
-
Can't be unsafe if it doesn't exist lol
-
-
-
-
What are you trying to say by linking this article?
I mean, it even says that it was a mechanical issue - and the radiation danger was low. And even then, it's just a single person. Looking at the bigger picture, the numbers game favors nuclear+wind+solar over fossile.
-
Just found it coincidental that today someone died from radiation at a nuclear power plant. It does not happen that often.
-
-
-
Not just that, but you might get less radiation swimming in the pool where spent nuclear fuel rods are stored than outdoors.
-
Haha, that's a nice explanation
-
-
Nuclear power is actually the cleanest way to produce energy. The waste from replacing solar panels and windmills (which have a service life only three to five years) is actually more of a problem than the waste from spent fuel rods. Plus environmental impacts from fuel rod production are less than solar panel and windmill production. The problem with nuclear energy happens when things go wrong. It would have to be absolutely accident free. It never has been and never will be.
Though they're on the right track with nuclear power. Fusion would be ideal, runs on seawater (fuses deuterium/tritium) and if there's a problem you simply shut off the fuel. Problem is insurmountable engineering issues, we just don't have tech for it yet (need anti-gravity). They've been working on it for many decades and progress has been painfully slow.
-
Windmills last much longer than five years. They generally last 20-25. Wherever you heard that bullshit number from, ignore all the other info you got from them.
-
Not only windmills, but also every for of alternative energy production.
-
-
Wind turbines do not have a service life of 3 to 5 years. Where did you hear that?
-
Even when things go wrong, it's not as bad as with the other classic fossile energy sources. Exactly this calculation is included in the world in data source on deaths per kWh which I linked.
When we have car accidents normalised, massive climate change, air pollution from fossile fuels, then even the occasional nuclear accident isn't really a problem.
The problem is, that these accidents get much more attention than they deserve given how many deaths are caused by fossile fuels. When calibrating for deaths, fossile fuels should get around 100x the attention
-
652 comments