kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@dmk @nicksellen

Ok, go and check this, and tell me what you think:

https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-management/underground-disposal/

@dmk @nicksellen

Fukushima reactors were built in 70's in the middle of a seismic zone for God's sake! At the same time, there's like 440 nuclear other reactors in operation right now and they had no serious accidents, ever. Compare that with other sources of energy, and you really get the lowest death rate per MW.

@dmk @nicksellen

I wouldn't worry about that, radiological labs in Poland detected the leak the next day, they just were suppressed from making it public. Then communism collapsed only 3 years later and there was no reason to falsify thyroid cases. Same for milk, grass, mushrooms etc.

@dmk @nicksellen

Again, we've been there - compare EROEI (energy return on energy invested) - a modern PWR reactor returns the energy invested in 2 months, solar panels - in a couple of years.

@dmk @nicksellen

Well, Greenpeace is not scientific body yet it somehow "commissioned" a study but not even them claimed "a million":

"Another study critical of the Chernobyl Forum report was commissioned by Greenpeace, which asserted that the most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine the accident could have resulted in 10,000–200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004"

@dmk @nicksellen

> the overall monetary costs

But it's false, just look at LCOE (levelized cost of energy) for UK. First, it's cheaper than off-shore farms, second, it's not "far bigger" than on-shore wind farms or solar. Third, and most importantly, you physically cannot cover 5'000 km2 in UK or Germany with solar panels or wind farms and equivalent nuclear power plant will occupy <1 km2 at worst.

@dmk @nicksellen

> because it is a high risk technology

Any nuclear reactors operational today will shut down automatically without power and human intervention. How is that "high risk" technology, if you have thousands times more people killed and environment damaged by any other energy technology?

> find a long-term solution for the high radioactive waste

Really? What about this:

https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-management/underground-disposal/

@dmk @nicksellen

Just to be clear, at the time of Chernobyl disaster I was living 700 km away in Kraków and we obviously were not notified until like 3 days later.

There was no visible increase in cases of thyroid cancer in Poland, and you can collect mushrooms in forests because any levels of cesium are so nominal that they have no biological effects.

But you know what is very widespread in Kraków? Lung cancer and other lung diseases caused by coal.

@dmk @nicksellen

And what you're trying to say here is that depleted uranium projectiles are made in nuclear power plants, yes? 🤔

@dmk @nicksellen

> can be a worthwhile scientific and societal discussion

Excuse me, but this discussion has been happening for the last few decades already.

The data is absolutely clear: wind and solar have their place, but are resource-intensive and require storage and base load. As of today nuclear is the only zero-emission base load.

If you *choose* to ignore the whole scientific discussion only because "you don't like atom", please don't be surprised I'm not respecting your position.

@dmk @nicksellen

And you know perfectly well that the Greenpeace estimates are bullshit and just as biased as DuPont estimates of deaths from PFOA. Also there's no such thing as "long term death-rate", you can only estimate possible years of life lost as result of early thyroid cancer because this is what the iodine isotope released in Chernobyl can impact. The best estimate was ~200 cases of thyroid cancer over 20 years. This is how many people died in UK on wind tower accidents.

@dmk @nicksellen

> free of nuclear power plants

This is precisely why I compared it to racism: a fear originating from a misplaced and generalized blame, rationalized using manipulated, biased and cherry-picked data.

Unlike racism, radiophobia leads to choices that are potentially catastrophic for the whole humanity and result in thousands estimated cases of increased mortality as result of increased air pollution.

As of today "green" Germany emits 5.5x more CO2 than "evil nuclear" France.

@dmk @nicksellen

> You know very well what I meant,

No, 100% honestly I had no idea what you meant by "nuclear free zones" as it made just as little sense in any possible meaning I could think of.

> these two industries are entirely unrelated

Correct, you can't make plutonium in a civilian Pressurized Water Reactor regardless of how much you try.

@dmk @nicksellen

> free environmental energy

It's never free if you first need to invest energy to make it, then maintain it and then recycle.

For example, most people speaking of PV rarely remember to mention that single industrial 500 MW solar farm uses 3'000'000 m3 of water per year just to clean the panels.

This is precisely why we look at indicators such as EROI or compare material inputs for manufacturing and operations.

@dmk @nicksellen

> get a chance to live in nuclear free zones

And if you preference is to live in a "nuclear free zone" then you probably chose a wrong place in the universe to live, because the whole Earth - and probably any other planet - is literally bathed in radiation, coming both from the space and from the radioactive elements in the ground. And you should get rid of any solar panels and wind farms in the first place, as their mining releases radioactive elements.

@dump_stack

One thing for sure - people there are great, as long as you come with an open mind.

Same as with anyone coming to Russia from Poland, or to Poland from Russia, or whatever else from <> to combination.

I can't say the same about so called "law enforcement" services as they are more shameless than in large towns, but hey, FSB and GIBDD are one federal organisations after all 😂

@dmk @nicksellen

Taking two nuclear accidents over 70 years history of nuclear power *and* ignoring areas polluted and people killed by any other sources, including renewables, is a textbook example of propaganda.

@dmk @nicksellen

> If people decide to live with and from nuclear power, I respect that

I don't respect that and find just as irrational and uneducated as "preference not to live next to black people" or whatever other personal biases people come up in the developed world.

@dmk @nicksellen

> I personally would rather reduce my energy consumption

No, you won't. While personal energy conservation is necessary and important, you still want your hospital and trains to operate 24/7 and will freak out when they don't because they went solar and don't operate at night.

@dmk @nicksellen

> Solar power can be integrated

Yes, with even lower efficiency than the usual 15%. So you need even more panels.

> And it has the potential

Nuclear fusion also has many potentials but it's not yet there. We can speak of it when potential becomes an actually engineered product.