[vlovich123]

That seems like a little bit of a non sequitur to the topic in this particular thread chain.

Anyway, yes of course they happen. They happen in every power producing industry. It's hard to find good numbers of course as there's going to be some amount of error, but here's one [1].

The point isn't that in that report nuclear has fewer deaths than wind and solar as I'm sure that will cause an emotional reaction. The point is that it's so low and comparable. Even if it was 10x worse it would be worth the tradeoff of replacing coal.

Nuclear is our only choice for replacing industrial scale use of coal and oil. It's unfortunate that that's the case, but those are the facts on the ground currently and there's no sign of that ever changing. The way Wind and Solar generate energy are wholly incompatible with high temperature industrial uses where coal and natural gas are used let alone the problems of variability (batteries help, but there are limits and batter manufacturing at scale brings its own challenges).

If you're comparing Nuclear to Wind and Solar power generation, you're comparing power sources that don't compete. Nuclear is about replacing the worst problems coal and oil present us and staving off global warming. It's an extremely critical and underdeveloped resource and only gets safer and better with time. It would be erroneous to state any risk in a vacuum - you have to compare it with what's happening today.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

[throwaway894345]

To boot, almost every time a nuclear reactor is decommissioned, it is replaced by more fossil fuel plants, not by renewable energy. You can’t be seriously opposed to climate change and nuclear energy at the same time.

[newbamboo]

I’ve learned there are two distinct groups of people who claim to be concerned about climate change. One group that sees it coming and sincerely wants to find viable solutions to the problem, and a much larger group who use it to fuel somewhat misanthropic psychological control issues. This second group spend most of their time thinking (and arguing!) about how other people are not riding bikes to work, not using reusable grocery bags, not buying electric vehicles, and voting in ways that they don’t like. They see Greta thunderberg as the solution to climate change, “if only we could shame enough people into riding their bike to work, we will save the planet,” they think. “If we just invest in solar” they say, never mentioning the tricky details like battery manufacture and placement, “we won’t solve the problem, because it’s too late for that, but it would be better.”

These people are not going to solve the problem of climate change. That’s not really what they are in it for. And so the much smaller first group of people, who aren’t focused on changing behaviors of other people (social control) are the only hope. They, the first group, are hampered at every turn by the second group. The second group indeed are the cause of “climate denialism.”

It’s good to learn to spot these people and simply not engage. When they make inane claims about nuclear being unsafe, just correct the record and move on.

[DisjointedHunt]

We’re seeing this play out in real time in Europe and the lack of serious coverage in the USA is disappointing