▲ 681 ▼ Power Sources (lemmy.zip) submitted 3 years ago* by balderdash9@lemmy.zip to c/memes@lemmy.ml 162 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] jose1324@lemmy.world 11 points 3 years ago (3 children) .. but that's literally not true? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children) Actually, seems you're right though it's obviously still more complicated than either one or the other. I was using outdated information, my bad. Did some more research. A few links: https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-nuclear-won-t-cut-it-if-we-want-to-drop-carbon-as-quickly-as-possible https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315 https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2020/Q2/can-renewable-energy-really-replace-fossil-fuels.html (Talks only about renewable energy but not nuclear, though I still found it helpful) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blake@feddit.uk 9 points 3 years ago Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for looking into this further and being brave to admit when you’re wrong. That’s a really admirable quality which is way too uncommon these days! For the safety aspect, I don’t think deaths is the most helpful comparison - considering for nuclear that many, many thousands of people will have to deal with health problems caused by radiation exposure over decades. Lots of people argue that the Chernobyl death toll should include people who die from the effects of that radiation, which would push the numbers from ~300 dead to tens of thousands. permalink fedilink source parent [+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children) Actually, seems you're right though it's obviously still more complicated than either one or the other. I was using outdated information, my bad. Did some more research. A few links: https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-nuclear-won-t-cut-it-if-we-want-to-drop-carbon-as-quickly-as-possible https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315 https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2020/Q2/can-renewable-energy-really-replace-fossil-fuels.html (Talks only about renewable energy but not nuclear, though I still found it helpful) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blake@feddit.uk 9 points 3 years ago Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for looking into this further and being brave to admit when you’re wrong. That’s a really admirable quality which is way too uncommon these days! For the safety aspect, I don’t think deaths is the most helpful comparison - considering for nuclear that many, many thousands of people will have to deal with health problems caused by radiation exposure over decades. Lots of people argue that the Chernobyl death toll should include people who die from the effects of that radiation, which would push the numbers from ~300 dead to tens of thousands. permalink fedilink source parent [+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blake@feddit.uk 9 points 3 years ago Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for looking into this further and being brave to admit when you’re wrong. That’s a really admirable quality which is way too uncommon these days! For the safety aspect, I don’t think deaths is the most helpful comparison - considering for nuclear that many, many thousands of people will have to deal with health problems caused by radiation exposure over decades. Lots of people argue that the Chernobyl death toll should include people who die from the effects of that radiation, which would push the numbers from ~300 dead to tens of thousands. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
