Nuclear power: why is it so unpopular? | The Economist
youtu.be
The meltdown at a nuclear power station in Fukushima, Japan, ten years ago stoked anxieties about nuclear energy. But nuclear is one of the safest, most reli...

For the most part, this is a good, informative video about the advantages of nuclear energy.

Then, at 9:00 they talk about the danger of nuclear weapon proliferation. Obviously, this is a scary subject and requires scary footage. Guess what they chose?

Nuclear weapons test footage?

No.

Muslims praying.

Marg Bar The Economist.

  • carbohydra [des/pair]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Does it matter? The US dropped nukes before , what would stop them from bombing a waste site?

      • carbohydra [des/pair]
        ·
        4 years ago

        You don't even need to bomb them, but whatever. I'm getting the sense you are trolling. Boy, bye!

        • GrandAyatollaLenin [he/him,comrade/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Tell me how a metal rod encaced in concrete, burried thousands of feet underground, surrounded by radiation shielding, in the middle of the desert, is going to hurt you.

          • carbohydra [des/pair]
            ·
            4 years ago
            1. You still need to transport them there, so there's plenty of time before they reach the destination.
            2. Radiation reaching groundwater etc. and destroying the ecosystem.
            3. You really trust capitlalist corporations to follow proper process handling all this?
            • GrandAyatollaLenin [he/him,comrade/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              You still need to transport them there, so there’s plenty of time before they reach the destination.

              And yet this has never caused a problem in the decades-long history of nuclear energy production.

              Radiation reaching groundwater etc. and destroying the ecosystem.

              And yet we have the technology for safe containment.

              You really trust capitlalist corporations to follow proper process handling all this?

              No, which is why you have state-run nuclear power systems. Besides, your concern was the technology, which objectively does exist to the level we can generate nuclear energy safely.

              • carbohydra [des/pair]
                ·
                4 years ago

                Chernobyl was also impossible until it happened.

                Where was my concern the technology?

                • GrandAyatollaLenin [he/him,comrade/them]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  We've have the technology to generate safe nuclear energy production. We had that when Chernobyl was constructed. Chernobyl chose not to use that technology.

                  Chernobyl was the only nuclear reactor design capable of failing like that, and even then they had to shut off all the safety systems and sabotage the stop mechanism to actually have a disaster.

                  Maybe the technology will be developed to a harmless level in 500 years, but we don’t have that time.

                  The time is now. The time is the 1960s actually.

                  • carbohydra [des/pair]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    Maybe I phrased it badly then. New technology only matters if you use it, so in my eyes in 1986, even though research was ahead, the new models were not built, so talking about that new technology leads nowhere. If even a state run nuclear power plant doesn't use supposedly safe technology, what are our options?

                    I'm also cautious about handing capitalists, quite literally, infinite power. Why wouldn't they get greedy and run the plants over the limit and cause unforeseen disasters?