• lemmyseizethemeans
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    9 months ago

    Meanwhile Fukushima still uninhabitable and currently as we speak dumping tritium into the ocean

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Fukashima is not uninhabitable, neither is Chernobyl/Pripyat, you won’t just die from entering the area without any protection.

      Very few health issues have been detected as a cause of the Fukashima nuclear disaster:

      https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-radiation-exposure.aspx

      It is the fear of radiation that makes us call it uninhabitable, this is an older documentary, but it is still valid and is still important:

      https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7pqwo8

    • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Sure but fossil fuels about to make the whole planet uninhabitable… And massive oil spills in the ocean are much too common

      • lemmyseizethemeans
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        But solar and wind don’t. Why must we use nuclear. We could weatherproof houses and paint rooftops white. There are a million solutions that don’t require me to get radiation poisoned

        • Hestia [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Because not all places are sunny or windy, and solar requires copious amounts of lithium which needs to be extracted from the earth, which has its own consequences. That said, Japan should look into developing their ability to harness the kinetic energy from tidal forces. It’s wise to diversify the power grid.

        • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          You’re not going to get radiation poisoning from a nuclear plant, unless you’re planning to personally planning to break in and turn off all the safeties to cause another Chernobyl (also there are more safeties now, since, y’know…). You don’t have concerns about nuclear, you have baseless fears. With current battery technology we can’t fulfill energy demands just off solar and wind, so it’s coal or nuclear. As much as it does have legitimate downsides, you are at about as much risk from radiation as you are from a windmill falling on you.

            • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Hexbear doesn’t have downvotes, so there’s no point complaining to me about it, but you’re not being downvoted for promoting solar and wind, you’re being downvoted for fear mongering over nuclear. We all want more solar and wind, and hydroelectric and all the other renewable energy sources, but we don’t have the technology to run the world on them yet. Until we do, we have to use nonrenewables, and nuclear is by far the least damaging of the nonrenewables we have access to. The naturally occuring radioactive isotopes in coal result in coal plants release more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear plants, so screeching about how nuclear energy is going to give you radiation poisoning and we should just use renewables shows you to be deeply ignorant about both.

        • SoyViking [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          These things are certainly going to be part of the solution. We want multiple sources of power and we want to improve the efficiency of our energy usage. But we are still going to need ways of generating power when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. And here nuclear is one of the safest options.

    • SoyViking [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Even when you consider that disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl are going to happen once in a while, nuclear power still causes less death and disease per megawatt than coal does. And unlike coal that you really can’t make less lethal unless a wizard comes and conjures large-scale carbon capture into existence, nuclear power is still developing and becoming safer and less lethal.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      dumping tritium into the ocean

      Despite what Chinese propaganda keeps saying, it’s very safe amounts. Less than just safe… negligible. The IAEA has been monitoring levels in the area and tritium levels haven’t even gone up detectably. Tritium also has a fairly short half-life of 12.5 years.

        • SSJ2Marx@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m generally pro China but this whole spat is little more than a premise for protectionism of China’s fishing industry. If they really cared about tritium they would do something about their own runoff which far outweighs Japan’s.

          • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            9 months ago

            Many Fukuahima residents and the Japanese national fishermen’s association opposing the release of contamination of contaminated water isn’t based on Chinese protectionism. English language news media has painted this as a China vs Japan issue when in fact many people inside Japan also oppose the release of contaminated water into the ocean. Especially since the plan was rushed through from announcement to implementation on the span of about a week, specifically so that domestic opposition couldn’t mount until it was already too late.

          • stoy@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Because it is one of the absolute least environmentally harmful sources of energy available to us, because base load isn’t going away and by using nuclear energy we stop polluting fossil fuel plats, and hydro power that ruins eco systems in rivers.