this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
0
Nuclear energy has no place in a green Scotland (greens.scot)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Nuclear energy has no place in a green Scotland - Nuclear power leaves a long and toxic legacy.

Mr Ruskell said: “There is nothing safe, secure or green about nuclear energy, and many people across Scotland will be dismayed and angry to hear that the Secretary of State is seeking to open a new reactor in Scotland.

“Aside from the brazen entitlement and the message this sends, it ignores that people in Scotland have long rejected nuclear energy. I hope that all progressive parties will unite in condemning this environment wrecking overreach.

“A new reactor would not only be unsafe, it would be extremely costly and would leave a toxic legacy for centuries. It would also distract from the vital work we need to do to boost clean, green and renewable energy.

“That is why I hope all progressive parties can rule out any return to nuclear power once Torness has been decommissioned.

“The Hinkley point shambles has exposed the UK government’s total inability to deliver nuclear programmes on budget or on time. We would be far better investing in the huge abundance of renewable resources that we already have here in Scotland.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Nuclear energy has, by a staggering margin, the lowest death toll of any form of energy generation per kW produced. And almost all of these come from Chernobyl, where 31 people died due to the explosion, then a further 46 died due to radiation poisoning from the cleanup.

The number of people that died on the spot, could be as low as you say. 77 people is far from being the death toll of the Chernobyl disaster, and that is taking into consideration the fatality numbers are disputed.

The World Health Organization (WHO) suggested in 2006 that cancer deaths could reach 4,000 among the 600,000 most heavily exposed people, a group which includes emergency workers, nearby residents, and evacuees, but excludes residents of low-contaminated areas.[26] A 2006 report, commissioned by the anti nuclear German political party The Greens and sponsored by the Altner Combecher Foundation, predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of worldwide Chernobyl fallout by assuming a linear no-threshold model for very low doses.

A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[29]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

That green party estimate is so laughable I'm not even going to comment on it further.

The WHO states it could be up to 4,000 in the long term, but may be substantially lower. The UN Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation concluded that even this figure is far too high.

Harvard university says that 8.7 million people die from greenhouse gas emissions each year. And that doesn't even account for direct accidents from generation and coal/gas extraction. Having a nuclear base load would save millions of lives.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I find it difficult to follow your reasoning. Initially you said 77 people died from the Chernobyl disaster.

Now you have opinions related to the different estimations but talk about thousands of people, without retracting your previous position.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

77 people died directly. Up to 4000 (although that's a very high estimate) may die in the long term.

Millions die from fossil fuel emissions each year.

It's not hard to follow at all. You want the death toll to increase, I don't.