this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
229 points (92.9% liked)

World News

38307 readers
3626 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 months ago (4 children)

When I was a kid, Chernobyl happened. We weren't that far away and although I was very little I still remember the fear and uncertainty in my parent's faces. The following years were marked by research about what we can no longer eat, where our food comes from, etc

I also remember the fights about where to store nuclear waste.

I don't want to burn coal. I am pretty upset about what happened to our clean energy plans. But I will also never trust nuclear again. And I think, so do many in my generation.

[–] [email protected] 73 points 4 months ago (2 children)

which is funny because fossil fuels are everywhere poisoning the air and environment in general, not different from the nuclear radiation bogeyman

[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Especially when coal rejects a lot more radioactive materials in the air than nuclear power

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

There are still large areas in southern Germany where you’re not allowed to eat wild mushrooms and every boar that is hunted must be tested for radiation. That is because of the fallout from Chernobyl 38 years ago and 1400 km away.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

For sure, but there are places in Germany and everywhere in Europe where you shouldn't be eating or drinking anything that comes out of the ground because of coal emissions, and places you can't do anything in because of the gigantic coal mines. And that's still currently happening and will keep happening for the foreseeable future.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Which is mostly due to fear(mongering) and not real residue.

And see another comment about coal emissions which are happening right now.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Please do note the official warnings of the BFS (Federal Office for Radiation Protection). Contamination of forests with Caesium-137 is a health risk in many southern Bavarian forests. It's half-life period is 30 years. The disaster was in 1986. That means it's still roughly half of it there and the layered forest grounds preserve radiation well.

If you're a mushroom forager on vacation in southern Bavaria - just don't do it. Or at least inform yourself which types of mushrooms you shouldn't eat in particular for radiation reasons.

General information and warnings (2022):
https://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/ion/notfallschutz/notfall/tschornobyl/umweltfolgen.html#doc6055566bodyText3

Specifically regarding mushrooms (2019):
https://www.bfs.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/BfS/DE/broschueren/ion/info-wildpilze.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=7

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

OK, thanks. That ends the argument on South German forests, but doesn't end it on nuclear energy being more or less harmful than coal.

[–] someguy3 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

All coal does is guarantee it and dilute it (guaranteed ejecting more).

[–] [email protected] 35 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Actually coal plants which are in use, spew thousands of times of nuclear material into the air what any nuclear plant ever has.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Including Chernobyl and Fukushima?

[–] Snoopey 12 points 4 months ago
[–] [email protected] 26 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The best thing to do when you fall off a horse, is climb straight back up on it. Rejecting almost limitless power because of an accident almost 40 years ago is foolish to me. Luckily research didn't completely stop and modern plants are a lot safer with a lot of medical applications for the waste.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

But the horse still has a broken leg (End-Storage) and noone really knows how to fix that at the moment. Maybe give the horse some drugs to make the leg stronger (Transmutate the materials from long to moderately-long half-lifes), but we still need to support it in the end.

The move to coal was absolutely stupid, the CDU (which is currently gaining some traction.. again), dialed back on renewables which should have replaced some of the capacities lost to nucelar.. and then decided a new coal plant was a great idea too.
Probably some corruption.. sorry "Lobbying"-work behind that.. its not like the Experts (which were paid pretty well) told them that was a bad idea..

Maybe some more modern nucelar plants might work.. but its unprofitable (probably always was, considering the hidden costs on the tax payers already), so needs to be heavily state-funded, same with storage (plus getting all the stuff out of the butchered storage Asse, putting it somewhere else)
I am open to it, but dont see it happening. And storage.. no hopeful thoughts about that either, i dont think the current politic structures are well suited to oversee something like that from what we have seen from other storage-locations that are or were in use.

I'd also love some more plans for big energy storage aswell as new subsidies for the energy grid and renewables. The famous german bureaucracy is obviously also not helping any of this.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

All of the nuclear waste produced by all of the nuclear power plants ever produced could fit on the area of about the size of a football pitch. Storing nuclear waste, isn’t the massive problem. People say it is. It could be easily disposed of by digging a very deep hole and sticking it in it.

It’s not ideal, sure, but it’s not exactly a huge problem either.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And that hole would of course not deform at all or release the products into the environment over some amount of time?
We already have that problem.. They tried more or less simply burying it in Asse, which spectacularly failed and now has to be brought back up.. paid by the government (so us) of course

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Not if it’s deep enough and properly encased. And even in the extremely rare occasion there are mistakes made with improper storage or unforeseen environmental changes that require re-storage, the environmental impacts are still negligible.

The fear mongering around this is absurdly overblown.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Subsidizing reactors to run off waste would be fine. Better than burying it. I'm actually against building new nuclear for general power (for economic reasons), but support reactors for this purpose. The waste is sitting right there already, and we have to do something with it.

[–] someguy3 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sorry but this sounds like: A car crashed when I was young because the driver was drunk. I will never trust a car again.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

...Which is a perfectly normal thing to feel. Car crash happended that affected them, now they try to avoid cars.

[–] someguy3 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It's emotions, not logic. Especially to protest the existence of cars and trying to rid the world of them. In exchange for, say, horses which would kill even more people. All because of a drunk driver (better analogy would be a drunk driver that had a blow device but managed to bypass it).

[–] WindyRebel 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, and? Are you discounting how powerful emotions can be versus logic? There’s an entire industry (psychology) around this and they still haven’t solved it.

[–] someguy3 2 points 3 months ago

That's the thing. When it comes to nuclear they think it's logic, when in reality it's emotion.

[–] Sorgan71 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nuclear power is the only feasible clean power