As of 2014, there have been more than 100 serious nuclear accidents and incidents from the use of nuclear power. Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and about 60% of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.[10] Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), Chernobyl disaster (1986), Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).[11] Nuclear power accidents can involve loss of life and large monetary costs for remediation work.[12]
and
But I guess that, for you, this data is brainwashing and since it’s official, it must be fake.
I’m not talking about incidents that cause issues inside the facility that can be contained with virtually no effect on the outside world. THAT’S WHAT THE SAFETY SYSTEMS DO! They contain problems! I’m not claiming that problems don’t happen. I am claiming that nuclear facilities are built with so many fail-safes that it is almost virtually impossible for a significant incident to affect the health of the general population. And outside of Soviet-era Russia, the safety systems have worked in virtually 100% of all incidents. Look at that list. In the past 60+ years, the only nuclear power-related deaths that I can see are 2 radiation deaths at a fuel reprocessing plant in Japan (not Fukushima).
TWO DEATHS…in 60 years (not including the horribly mismanaged Soviet-era Russia)
FAR more people die from radiation due to radiotherapy equipment malfunctions and misuse than in incidents related to nuclear power generation.
It’s always sometimes never almost usually but I didn’t say that and I am not talking about it never always and I am not claiming, but it’s … safe.
Thanks. You really changed my mind. I feel so safe now. Now I can say, I know a guy who thinks and says that… It’s always sometimes never almost usually but I didn’t say that and I am not talking about it never always and I am not claiming, but it’s … safe.
Far more people have been killed by wind turbine-related accidents, than non-Chernobyl nuclear plants.
Not to mention of course the birds:
“Sovacool estimated that in the United States wind turbines kill between 20,000 and 573,000 birds per year”
If safety was the main thing to consider, it looks like nuclear power is far safer than wind energy both for people and animals. Really activates your almonds, doesn’t it?
Ooops, we switched from general population to birds!
Excuse me, I can not compete
There is no official data about birds hurt or killed by nuclear.
But I trust you…
It must be close to “zero” because " nuclear facilities are built with so many fail-safes that it is almost virtually impossible for a significant incident to affect the health of the general population. "
Absolutely no life on earth has been almost virtually impossibly affected by nuclear.
This is just so dumb… It’s FAR SAFER than the alternatives. 2 deaths in 60 years. Compare that to the millions of people who die due to fossil fuel mining, plant accidents, and pollution.
If you don’t feel safe around nuclear power, it’s because you don’t understand it… It’s that simple.
What am I supposed to say? I can’t say it is IMPOSSIBLE. I can’t say that about anything. I can only speak in probabilities. The probability of a nuclear incident that adversely affects the health of the population is almost zero. This is evidenced by zero deaths in the entire history of nuclear power generation with the exception of Soviet-era Russia…and YES, I think that is absolutely a fair exception to make since they didn’t follow any of the safety protocols that have been internationally established.
It is absolutely laughable that people hold nuclear power to this unreasonable standard of safety. Zero deaths for 60 years isn’t good enough…even though no other energy production method can meet that same standard.
Did you conveniently skip the first two links that I posted? Those that report human deaths caused by wind turbines? I thought you were concerned about human safety, but if you then ignore it when convenient for your “nuclear is bad” argument, I’m afraid your position will look rather weak.
Funny thing the only places that voted against nuclear power were - surprise- Lanyu and the people next to the fourth nuclear plant.
There have been incidents, they have been downplayed or under reported. Read about international nuclear experts evaluations on the system here, especially the fourth nuclear plant. They call it a dump.
It’s the economic damage that a leak could cause which could be catastrophic . Imagine produce across the whole island being embargoed. Nobody wanting to eat it even in Taiwan. Or a whole city off limits , practically if not legally, to visitors. That’s what people are really worried about . Taiwan is relatively used to natural disasters and loss of life .
I think the risk is quite low but it’s there especially as this place is very active tectonically and the plants were built a long time ago.
While I’m sure they mostly voted against it and probably with higher turn-out, could that have affected it that much? Christians (Protestants and Catholics) make up only a small percentage of the population, even in the areas they are the most populous.
Anyway, it looks like no region voted with more than 50% in favor.
Interesting numbers but looks dubious to put it mildly. One possibility is that they are including construction and other indirect casualties in non-nuclear stats but not in nuclear.
Subsidies and other arguments miss the point though. Wind, solar and geothermal are the future whoever gets to make them economical first will pocket a shit ton of money.
It’s ridiculous to blame Christians like people have for the results, I see it posted everywhere now. The percentage of Christians in Taiwan is not that high, and even lower are those really nasty ones they are talking about. Many of them feel civil marriage should be open for SSM. The ultra conservative Christians also did not sway the vote the other way with their campaigning, thats absurd.
It has everything to do with people misjudging how conservative the average Taiwanese voter is.
Continual of the bashing of the average christian in Taiwan will hurt their cause, you saw how Trump gained a lot of votes from Christians who were continually ridiculed by the left for their beliefs.
Interesting numbers but looks dubious to put it mildly. One possibility is that they are including construction and other indirect casualties in non-nuclear stats but not in nuclear.
Subsidies and other arguments miss the point though. Wind, solar and geothermal on an individual / private level are the future whoever gets to make them economical first will pocket a shit ton of money.
I mean, the future is that everyone should be responsible for producing his/her own energetic needs. Please comment
Was the group that sponsored that anti-same-sex marriage referendum a Christian group? It had the word “family” in it which is typical of American-based Christian groups that oppose it, but I couldn’t find anything about the one here.
I believe so, or most of their members are at least.
It’s not believable to me these groups swayed the vote one way. I’m sure they had some minor influences in the great scheme of things. But to say it’s their fault and all these everyday Christians fault is ignoring the issue. Some people are so stuck in their echo chamber where they see everyone posting pro SSM, they can’t see a huge percentage of people being far more conservative.
Details in articles already linked to above. (Oh, and you can’t even get your story straight.)
The problem with that argument is that the USSR actually happened, and a similar thing could happen again, or according to some, it’s already happening again.
Wind power is no immaculate goddess either, but it’s not apples to apples. More like wormy crabapples to quasi-immortal triffids on steroids.
