Post AvRrFCdqiEfNe1fmDI by rainynight65@mastodon.social
 (DIR) More posts by rainynight65@mastodon.social
 (DIR) Post #AvRrFBXmnIDqEvpQ7k by collectifission@greennuclear.online
       2025-06-24T05:20:31Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       On the latter @rainynight65 is amazingly close to connecting the dots: all energy sources involve a risk. Per unit of energy generated people die, regardless of what we do.It just so happens that nuclear is among the safest energy sources we know [1]. It indeed takes a certain level of 'moronicity' to think nuclear should be avoided because of the well known nuclear incidents.As for the first part of his post: the same source is also quite clear on how deadly coal actually is. Sure, you might not have *wanted* to replace nuclear with coal, that has certainly been a real world *consequence* over the last 40 years. Fuck around, find out.This is a well documented fact. Japan for example saw a 27% increase in coal usage [2] in the immediate aftermath of Fukushima as it closed all of its nuclear reactors overnight, killing thousands of people annually because of increased air pollution [3]. Meanwhile, the radiological effects of Fukushima killed none.This is because there's a difference between risk and hazard. We know that spent nuclear fuel for example is hazardous, therefore we made it so that the involved risks are minimal. Much like flying: it can easily be very hazardous to fly, yet we engineered things so that the risk are so low it's actually the safest mode of mass transportation.Hope this helps.[1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy[2] https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/japan#what-sources-does-the-country-get-its-electricity-from[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303611Link to post of rainynight65: https://mastodon.social/@rainynight65/114736068050418668
       
 (DIR) Post #AvRrFCdqiEfNe1fmDI by rainynight65@mastodon.social
       2025-06-24T05:39:14Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @collectifission Your [1] is *precisely* the moronic source I'm talking about. To attribute the deaths from the Banqiao Dam disaster - a dam that has never produced a single  of electricity and in fact was never even *equipped* to do so - to hydro-power, is a mental contortion that's beyond idiotic and only serves to distort facts and figures. I'll leave it at that.
       
 (DIR) Post #AvRrFDaLClSEZR2UNs by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
       2025-06-24T07:26:15Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @rainynight65 @collectifission As with the Machhu dam collapse in Gujarat a couple of years later, which is thought to have killed perhaps as many as 25 000 people, I tend to assign the River Ru catastrophe primarily to non-energy activities. But Vajont was a pure hydro dam, and the Buffalo Creek dam which collapsed in West Virginia, USA, in 1972 and killed 125 people was built to retain coal-mining waste, so is analogous to Aberfan.All the disasters shown occurred in nuclear countries.