• TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I think nuclear energy is a great idea in theory, but I have absolutely zero trust in companies handling nuclear waste responsibly. It’s not like they have a great track record.

    That being said, pretty excited about this if it’s as safe as they say.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      You have every right to not trust companies, I don’t either. Good thing we have multiple government regulators and multiple non-profit engineering/standards boards also involved.

      • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Sure, I just want to feel confident that said regulations actually have teeth and the punishment can’t just be factored into the cost of doing business.

        So, yes, I’m scared. Maybe that’s not rational, but I don’t want to look back in 40 years and find out we were wrong about the longevity of nuclear waste storage, or that the many minor infractions over the years have slowly built up into a real problem. I don’t want to discover that we’ve been outsourcing the most dangerous work to developing countries with less employee and environmental protections than our own. If there’s a viable method that’s inherently safer, I’d feel a little better about it.

      • miak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        From what I recall of Three Mile Island, I don’t know that I’d put a lot of trust in the NRC.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I mean no one died and it seems like most studies find few to no significant adverse long term health effects from the event.

          • miak@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            There have been studies that suggested increased cancer rates around TMI. I don’t pretend to follow TMI closely enough to know for sure, maybe those studies have been completely debunked. The trouble with cancer is there can be a number of different factors leading to it and isolating one incident as the main driver for cancer years down the line is difficult.

            There was also the issue with the way the surrounding communities were being “kept informed” and the fact that a whistle blower and to come forward to halt irresponsible clean up plans that could have caused a catastrophic event.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          I bet on the day Three Mile Island had the meltdown, hundreds if not thousands of people died due to emissions from coal power.

          The issues with fission are issues with practically. It’s expensive, pretty much. Concerns about meltdowns or waste storage are discussions that need to happen, but they pale in comparison to the damage we already experience every day.

          Hopefully small modular reactors will get popular in remote areas or industrial uses, and that will bring down the price to make them a feasible compliment to renewable energy.

          • miak@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I don’t disagree about the harm of coal and I am absolutely hoping fusion works out in the long run. All for clean energy!

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          I see. So because of an incident five decades ago out of hundreds of plants running since the 1950s that resulted in no deaths the entire NRC for all time forever is untrustworthy.

          Hey everyone go shut civilization down. The bar has been raised. Did an organization make a mistake that had no victim 51 years ago? This means it is destroyed forever. Only perfect people who act perfectly forever and into the past as far as you can look get to do anything.

          Got to love this new world. Where the only thing that is real is our outrage. Can you tell me anything about the NRC? Can you describe their emblem without looking it up? Can you tell me who is running it now? Can you tell me about its organization structure? How about the license renewal process? How about how inspections are even performed? Betting no. But you don’t need to, you have outrage and that replaces data. It is the master play that can never be defeated. As long as you can be upset about something you don’t need to know anything.

          There are people who are grandparents who weren’t alive during that incident.

          • miak@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            With respect, you are the one that seems outraged. I’m not outraged, just pointing out that government can be just as untrustworthy as corporations and in the case of the NRC, there is some history to justify that.
            Government agencies generally should be looked at with critical eyes, as should anyone claiming power over your life.

            Also, you claimed there were no victims. The fact that no one died in the immediate aftermath of TMI does not mean there were no victims. The surrounding communities were victimized by poor business decisions and poor oversight.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              there is some history to justify that.

              Emphasis on “some”.

              Also, you claimed there were no victims. The fact that no one died in the immediate aftermath of TMI does not mean there were no victims. The surrounding communities were victimized by poor business decisions and poor oversight.

              Do you think pedantically going after one word I said will make your pro-coal agenda work?

              • miak@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I just thought it was worth recognizing that there were victims as my point in my original post was regarding the trustworthiness of those that are supposed to be looking out for the people. And I guess I’m not sure where I’ve pushed coal, but you do you, I guess.

                Peace and love to you, Zombies

    • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Well, that’s why you put well funded, independent organizations in charge of setting and enforcing the rules around this kind of stuff

      And you don’t just give them the power to fine the companies exploiting the reactors, you give them the power to unilaterally decide to shut down the reactors if they deem it necessary

      • alekwithak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        With a rigorous set of ethics and standards so the industry doesn’t end up being overseen by a bunch of retired executives or getting kick-backs.

    • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      We’re currently trusting them to deal with all the filth that comes out of fossil fuel based power facilities. There’s a lot of very long lived awful waste that is produced.

      • CeruleanRuin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s kind of a devil-you-know thing, isn’t it?

        Like, we’ve seen on a limited scale what can happen when nuclear isn’t handled properly, and then we’ve also seen what kind of catastrophic messes the fossil fuel industry creates with our current fuel sources. It’s not a big leap of imagination to scale up Fukushima and Chernobyl to a global reach comparable to coal and oil.

        Our corporations have shown they will cut every corner available - even when heavily regulated - and our governments have shown they are too incompetent to properly enforce the regulations they do out on the books. It shouldn’t be any surprise that people are reluctant to get behind nuclear. Anyone who isn’t is hideously naive.