|
|
|
|
|
by akamaka
1399 days ago
|
|
It’s really ridiculous to say that nuclear is the safest form of energy, when deaths at Chernobyl and Fukushima were prevented only by enormous cleanup efforts that will probably easily exceed $100 billion each. That doesn’t include the lost economic value of the exclusion zone, higher energy prices, etc. Meanwhile, there has been a worldwide effort to spend billions of dollars upgrading existing reactors with enhanced safety equipment after Fukushima, which suggests that many nuclear operators had not been accurately calculating risk factors up to that point. The more accurate statement would be to say that humans are capable of overcoming the inherent danger of nuclear energy, with enough money, will, and sacrifice. |
|
The cost of nuclear may be a fair argument against it, and should definitely be considered when determing our energy policy. That doesn't mean it somehow kills more people.
Every form of energy has an inherent danger that humans can use money, will, and sacrifice to overcome.