We have 1,000 documentaries on Chernobyl. Why don't we have 10,000 documentaries on how safe Nuclear Power is? Do me a solid and name at least four (fünf).Protip: You can't.Don't worry, I'll wait.
>>521062187Nuclear power is only safe until it goes wrong though, then it's a huge fucking disaster
>>521062188And the chances is goes wrong are miniscule. The commies were fucking retards and had weird fucking rod protocols.BTW name four (fünf) documentaries, NOW.
>>521062187It's not going to be safe enough outside of asia to be run by the five billion black africans that will have emigrated by 2100
>>521062188So is oil. So are cars. So are people. So is every facet of society.
>>521062188same with airplanes
>>521062189>And the chances is goes wrong are minisculeCorrect but the potential severity of the outcome is extremely high. Modern day risk matrixes require both likelihood and severity to be in at least the "moderate" zone or it's deemed unsuitable.
>>521062191No, the worst outcomes of those are far less severe than the worst potential outcomes from nuclear. Although if cars were invented today they would be far more regulated than we currently do.>>521062192Still less severe outcomes than nuclear.
>>521062189>the chances is goes wrong are minisculebecause of the huge number of prohibitive regulations on it, and not allowing "the free market" to cut costs to maximize profits.
>>521062195Did you know companies are buying nuclear reactors to power ai data centersPurely private
>>521062188If it was for you safetyfags we'd be strapping helmets and kneepads to walk
>>521062194Oil spill, gas line explosion, plane crashing into the twin towers, the world slowly being turned into an uninhabitable wasteland, etc. The point is that any system can lead to a chain of disasters if something goes wrong but we don't generally design society around the assumption that things will go wrong, we put in place failsafes to prevent things from going wrong and choose the most efficient option. A powerline can easily come undone and kill someone but we still use electricity.
>>521062188>only safe until it goes wrong though, then it's a huge fucking disasterThat describes the whole electrical grid.https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5282086
>>521062188You describe cooking a soup.Just because some retards fucked up half a century ago, does not mean we should not use cheap, almost infinite, greenest (if you care about it) energy source on a planet.
>>521062194>Still less severe outcomes than nuclear.That pic says 7 people died in a plane crash a few days ago. The last nuclear disaster had 1 death 4 years after it happened.
>>521062187Every year the amount of radioactivity produced by coal power stations every year exceeds the amount of radioactivity produced by nuclear power stations.The radioactivity produced by nuclear power stations is in the form of nuclear waste, which is stored underground at great cost.The radioactivity produced by coal power stations is in the form of smoke, which is let out of the station by chimneys into the air.
>falling for the super charged steam meme
>>521062198>we don't generally design society around the assumption that things will go wrongWe absolutely do. >>521062201I'm referring to potential worst case scenario. In the case of nuclear power the severity of that is particularly bad. That's why that even though the likelihood is extremely low the severity is enough to hinder the take-up of nuclear energy production. If this wasn't the case we'd have been running on 100% nuclear for decades now.
>>521062200It isn't cheap.
>>521062187>Why don't we have 10,000 documentaries on how safe Nuclear Power is?Because that would be boring and nobody would watch them.
>>521062204Well... some planes crashing into buildings caused a 20 year war...
>>521062207two wars*
>>521062192I would've been pissed if my package was in that plane.
>>521062205Its cheaper in the long run.
>>521062187>>521062206This.It is the same reason the news is nothing but fearmongering over crime even as the actual crime rates fall, and the reason we don't see that many reports about the fact that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native population, even when taken per capita.Fear sells.
>>521062200Whites were too stupid to run nuclear reactors properly in the '70s and '80s and they're much dumber and weaker now
>>521062211Because the immigrant streams aren't majority black, yet.
>>521062213It's hard to imagine them ever outnumbering Indians.
>>521062192and planes are even one of the safest transport methods, but anti nuclear tards put the hypothetical scenerios that they make up in their head ahead of actual facts and turn a blind eye to how dangerous everything else is
>>521062211>It is the same reason the news is nothing but fearmongering over crime even as the actual crime rates fall,Crime is literally at an all-time high you poncereported crime stats =/= actual crime stats>>521062212Commies weren't. Whiites actually got it done. Just like they do every single time. The browns and blacks dig their noses and ask for gibs
>>521062216>the crimes being reported might be falling, but the crimes happening in my imagination are higher than they've ever been!
>>521062217NTA but do you really not know that murder rates are up like 50% since the mid 2010s? Other crimes can be manipulated pretty easily but corpses on the street can't really by juked.
>>521062217>he thinks every crime is reported honestly
>>521062218And how much of that percentage is the 2020 peak (which itself is still lower than the previous high seen in the early 90s)?
Political astroturfing thread created by lobby group thinktanks
>>521062219>ok ok so I don't have proof but that's just because the proof is itself a lielmfao you idiot
>>5210622202021 peak and I don't think the BJS has 2024 yet so I can't say much
>>521062221>be leftist>lose>cry foullmaoit's just anons here you retard
>>521062222What a good little goyim you are. You just believe everything you're told, huh?
>>521062214well it's coming, sub saharan africa is pretty much the only place on the planet that still reproduces above replacement and AFAIK even conservative projections have it continuing until they're half the population of the planet
>>521062225No, for example I believe nothing that you've said
>>521062224>get exposed>L-L-LEFTIST!!!!11LDS
>>521062188>>521062204This is such a retarded non-answer. Nuclear power has been around in large numbers for more than half a century. We have mass statistics on it, including estimates for "worst case scenario" that literally never happened. It is considerably safer than any alternative.
>>521062188Only if you're Russian.
>>521062188This applies to everything.You better stop drinking water, it can actually kill you.
>>521062229>It is considerably safer than any alternative.I have to wonder what's the minimum IQ to be able to process information and then extrapolate that into the future, for example to be able to imagine things that could be rather than things that have already happened? I'm pretty sure even lesser apes are somewhat capable, does that mean you're lower than that?
>>521062188i do not fear nuclear power at all when handled in western countries because they respect it and do things by the book, but i am worried about third world countries using it because those often have cultures based around cutting corners, covering your ass and trying to "cheat" reality in various ways. you can see how that turned out with russians and even they are relatively competent all things considered, compared to some other countries
>>521062233every non-asian country that was ever competent to run nuclear power is replacing their populations at rates never before seen in human history and the people that in 50 years would still be trying to run nuclear power plants that were started today will not be competent to do so.
>>521062232You have no idea how actuarial risk is calculated and it shows, or what the actual potential risks are. You then proceed to proclaim your own superiority. For entertainment purposes, show me the calculation of your estimated risk distribution on the subject. You're the type of retards that took seriously the "worst case scenario" that turning on the CERN hadron collider would spontaneously form a black hole. Hell you're probably vaxxed to the max and promoted doomsday interpretation of the meme flu where we would live through the black plague again.
>>521062210Only if you ignore the costs of decommissioning and handling the waste you disingenuous twonk. The real reason to oppose nuclear isn't that it's dangerous, it's simply that it's not worth it outside of a handful of very specific scenarios, almost all of which revolve around space.In the UK Labour are so deranged by their "muh growth" mentality and their desperate need to LARP as their working class past that they're pushing ahead with a new reactor despite the fact that we already, right now, generate enough renewable energy to power the whole country if they spent literally a tenth the amount they're willing to fritter away on nuclear just upgrading the grid and putting in some grid-scale storage capacity. And we've captured only a fraction of the energy available to us; agrisolar in the south of England, tidal turbines in river estuaries, wave generators off our ludicrously long coastline relative to our landmass, at-sea wind turbines - the UK could create twenty times as much energy as we could ever need for domestic and industrial consumption, but instead the cretins running the country literally pay the owners of wind farms in Scotland to turn off and then pay over-the-odds to turn on gas fired power plants in England because the UK government are too cheap and too afraid of NIMBY country bumpkins to just put in some new cables and pylons so all that renewable capacity can actually be used.The only reason they bleat on about nuclear is status. The UK wants to carry on pretending it's a global superpower and to do that it needs nuclear - nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Nevermind that it's nuclear power will be owned by and operated for the benefit and profit of foreign companies, or that our "independent deterrent" requires us to ask the Americans very very nicely if we ever want to actually use it, the faggots down at Westminster get to strut around at international conferences pretending Suez never happened.
>>521062227Everything you're told by your government and your Jew overlords though. I'll bet you still believe standing six feet apart and wearing two masks was vital to saving the world, even after they admitted that they made that up.
>>521062236>Anglo>shill for renewables>little England defeatismTop kek, you wallow in mediocrity oblivious to your ideas being one of the lead cause of the deindustrialization of the UK. Enjoy the heating bills.
>>521062235>Hell you're probably vaxxed to the maxYou were doing so well, but didn't stick the landing.Your trying to counter the fearmongering over nuclear power by resorting to the fearmongering over getting vaccinated.The president himself just got his latest covid booster shot last month. But sure, each of those jabs is contains the real new black plague.
>>521062229You don't understand how risk is calculated. Nuclear power has a very low likelihood of anything going wrong, but the potential severity if it does go wrong is extremely high. That makes it an unacceptable risk by modern day risk analysis standards, which is why it hasn't met its potential. As I said in another comment, if this issue had been resolved then we'd have switched to 100% nuclear power decades ago.>>521062231If you stop drinking water then the worst outcome is that one individual (you) dies, which is a low severity outcome in the field of risk analysis.
>>521062188It's only safe until it's notNo shit
>>521062237And who are you listening too for your 'facts'?(if you were going outside and tripping over all those corpses, that would still be anecdotal, but you'd have to leave your house to find out even that much for yourself).
>>521062241You omitted the second part of my sentence.
>>521062240>If you stop drinking waterThat's not the point I'm making at all. You are legit retarded, thanks for confirming it.
>>521062236>we already, right now, generate enough renewable energy to power the whole country if they spent literally a tenth the amount they're willing to fritter away on nuclear just upgrading the grid and putting in some grid-scale storage capacity>we already right now>if they do thisWell which is it?Because they literally are doing what you're describing, they're spending billions on doubling the renewable generation capacity in the next 10 years *despite* our country's energy demands falling and the fact that it's increasing our energy bills faster than anywhere else
>>521062187indian point had some leaking tritium that never left the reactor site and people were seething over it even though no one was harmed>>521062188not really. the US navy has never had a fatal nuclear accident and fukishima only killed like 1 person and that was 4 years later. I don't think three mile island killed anyone either. people way overblow the dangers of nuclear because the russians designed their reactors wrong, didn't even build them to spec and then violated a bunch of safety procedures. When American engineers did the same retarded shit at 3 mile island the properly designed and built plants contained the radiation
>>521062240>if this issue had been resolved then we'd have switched to 100% nuclear power decades ago.That would only be true if public perception weren't a factor. Designing ever safer reactors is meaningless if people never stopped distrusting them.Hell, even that isn't the only other factor. Political maneuvering can end up being a larger factor than actual efficiency versus risk and public perception. What ends up getting built has never been solely decided by what is actually the best option.
>>521062242I don't live in a hell hole, so no, I wouldn't be tripping over bodies. I don't get my "facts" from anywhere. The fact that you ask that shows you have a designated place you go to for your "facts" like a good little goyim. Literally nothing you hear or see online can be trusted when considering how easily manipulated it is. If you're not a slave, the best thing you can do is get a conglomerate of all the opinions out there and formulate your own. When everyone's looking to push their own agenda and the truth becomes a liability to people in power, you can't responsibility trust anyone. Most people don't have time for that, so what they do is find someone they relate to / trust and get their news through them.
>>521062215trains are slow and gay
>>521062240>modern day risk analysisBy the fake and gay standards according to which we live in a totalitarian control grid because people are afraid of their own shadows to save da children and the whales, while all important things shift to China because they are less homosexual. Once again should we have turned on the LHC? What about the 1 in a trillion trillion gogolplexes chance of blowing up half of Geneva? Does it fit the "moderate" category in the think tank powerpoint engineering?
>>521062236>Only if you ignore the costs ofIronic you say this when the reason nuclear has been made almost economically unfeasible is completely nonsensical overhead costs not related to the running of the plants themselves and/or brutally demanding constant security updates to a system that is already mostly foolproof.
>>521062244Your point was presumably that even something as benign as water can potentially kill you (if for example you drink it to excess). This is a stupid comparison to nuclear power as the potential outcome severity is wildly different between the two. You (and othera in this thread) seen to think that safety only relates to likelihood of something going wrong, and completely disregarding the other half of risk management which is what the potential severity is IF something does go wrong - which for nuclear power is incredibly high.
>>521062248>I don't live in a hell hole, so no, I wouldn't be tripping over bodies. I don't get my "facts" from anywhere.So you aren't seeing any of the crime.And you aren't hearing about any of the crime.But you just know it is happening.
>>521062188Did a new "Literally Me" just drop?
>>521062252>Your point wasYou already made it clear you didn't understand my point.
>>521062236>just build grid-scale storage capacity broEnvironmentalists don't want any more dams built though, and aren't we just doing this all for them anyway, since nobody else is happy
>>521062194the worst outcome of fossil fuel power is everyone on earth dying in a climate catastrophe and it's already happening now
>>521062250I'm not familiar with the risk analysis of the LHC but your sperging out over how risk is managed isn't going to change it, so not sure what the point of your post is.
>>521062187Stop trying to make fünf happen. It's never gonna happen.
>>521062228>get exposedWhere? Your baseless nonsensical accusations aren't "exposure", btw.
>>521062257You are safer than ever from the climate in 2025 than any human in history
>>521062255Perhaps because it was poorly communicated and not a very thoughtful point to begin with.
>>521062262>It's your fault I'm retardedYeah, no.
>>521062257>the worst outcome of fossil fuel power is everyone on earth dying in a climate catastropheThat is simply not true in the slightest. As the other anon already alluded to we have the technological means to survive climate disruption more than at any other point in history.
>>521062263You just don't have a good point and your analogy is stupid. You didn't appear to understand any of the points I've made either.
>bbbbut the heckin meltdowns!chernobyl literally could not happen in a modern reactorhow many people died after fukushima went into absolute meltdown after getting literally hit with a tsunami? 1if climate change is real and there are massive population displacements, famines, extreme weather etc, the blood of all those people will be on the hands of anti-nuclear activists
>>521062265>You just don't have a good pointHow would you know? You don't even know what my point is, you think I'm talking about hyperhydration lol.
>>521062253>You're not allowed to use "anecdotal" evidence>WHY AREN'T YOU USING ANECDOTAL EVIDENCEYou're not actually interested in a debate. You're either a bot or a shill just trying to ensure my energy is wasted arguing with a brick wall instead of doing something productive.>But I'll take the bait. It's 2025, everything is recorded, there are hundreds and hundreds of videos of nogs killing Whites and eachother daily.
>>521062258>over how risk is managed isn't going to change it,Yes by everything moving to China and the legislative inflation going its way until we have a trillion laws, already mentioned in my previous post. I know very well we live in the soccer mom risk management paradigm. It simply means we are asking to become irrelevant and lose all freedom along the way. The strange bit is how you gloat about this situation.
competency crisis means nuclear reactors will never be feasible ever again
>>521062267>Nuclear power hasn't made significant inroads because although the risk likelihood is very low, the outcome severity is very high and until that's resolved the industry cannot gain traction. >Hur dur but water can kill you too, better stop drinking itEmbarrassing
>>521062269Pointing out reality isn't gloating, anon.
>>521062271You still don't know what my point was. You are just moving the goalposts.
>>521062268I'm not complaining about you specifically not using anecdotal evidence.I'm complaining about you literally not using any evidence at all, by your own admission.>that last lineOkay so you lied before. You are getting your facts from somewhere: gifs posted on 4chanAnd you believe those to be an unbiased representation of the equal distribution of all crime.
>>521062273The goalposts remain where they started which is expecting you to reply with a valid rebuttal to my original point (which you can't seem to acknowledge or understand).
>>521062204>I'm referring to something that never happened
>>521062276>I'm referring to something that never happenedYes, that is often part of the definition of potential worst case scenario. That's how risk analysis works.
>>521062275>The goalposts remain where they startedI agree.>which is expecting you to reply with a valid rebuttalWrong. I already did that you simply didn't understand the point. Therefor, the goalpost remains where it started which is you not understanding a point.I'll gladly explain the point the moment you say "I didn't understand the point, explain it to me so we can have a constructive conversation." Until then, you are just having an autistic meltdown not worth engaging with in an intellectual way.
>>521062274No, again you don't know how to read. Unlike you, I don't see something and immediate take it as "fact". I collect the evidence and form my own opinion, like someone with a brain.>CRIME ISN'T HAPPENING, IGNORE THE THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF RECORDED EVIDENCE
>>521062278>>521062275Just kiss already
>>521062278I believe I did understand your point, and you're simply fixated on the semantics of how I replied to it but I'm give you the benefit of the doubt:I didn't understand the point, explain it to me so we can have a constructive conversation.If you do explain it and it's not along the lives of my assumption then I will genuinely admit so.
>>521062281Ok, lets go. I can tell you are autistic so I'm gonna do this in a specific way because know your type you are not going to bend and admit you were wrong.Do you drink tap water or bottled water?
Can we please discuss documentaries?
>>521062282>Do you drink tap water or bottled water?No, I don't.
>>521062279So people weren't getting killed by nogs in the 1991?Or could it be that people were getting killed more by nogs in 1991 than today (which the numbers support), but that people weren't walking around with cameras in their pockets and filming it every day?>It's 2025, everything is recordedAnd you never once thought that it might be a problem using those recordings as evidence of the rate of change in crime rates over time?
>>521062284>No, I don't.?You don't drink water?
>>521062272You just internalise our retarded governance as an inevitability. I'll take it as a concession on the rest of my posts.
>>521062286No, I don't, like I just said. Does explaining your point really hinge on that? You can hypothetically pretend I do if that makes it less difficult for you.
>>521062286If you're drinking anything other than pure corn syrup, you need to go back to wherever you came from.
>>521062285>in the 1991Good morning saar. Did you enjoy the poo-throwing festival?
>>521062287>You just internalise our retarded governance as an inevitability.You don't need to internalise anything to observe and acknowledge an external factor. The subject is about nuclear power and the reality is it won't gain significant traction anytime soon for the reasons I've mentioned numerous times now.
>>521062288>Does your point about drinking water hinge on people drinking water?Uh... yes?As I said, it's obvious you are autistic. Won't waste more time.Bottom line is you admitted you didn't get the point here>>521062281so I'll take that as your concession. Have a good day.
>>521062187>how safe Nuclear Power is?What do you do with "SAFE" nuclear waste?Oh right. You just dump it underground or into the ocean and pray the barrels don't erode in the next 100 million years and kill the entire continent.
>>521062292But people do drink water so you should be capable of explaining your point. How does the risk analysis of drinking water relate to that of nuclear power?
>>521062187It's okay we have new science now, gonna science the shit out of it
>>521062290You must be so relieved that my typo means you don't have to defend yourself.But remember, I'm apparently the one who is "not actually interested in a debate"
>>521062187Nuclear power is the safest and the greenest. Blows my mind entire countries are banning it because a bunch of Soviet idiots blew up a shitty reactor once (the place where it blew up is a green paradise full of wildlife now).
>>521062294As I said, I'm going to do this in a very specific way because I can tell you are autistic. You either play along and get the answer or you don't and get nothing out of it because you already admitted you didn't get my point.It's all up to you. But something tells me you simply don't want the conversation to keep going forward.Do you drink water?
>>521062291Your indian 70 IQ is showing.>>521062296You've already spend 3+ hours arguing on the fucking TV board. You are brown. There's no way you can distract from that fact. You can go on and start sperging out and calling everyone Ivan now.
>>521062298What do you mean play along? I've answered your question honestly. You're the one refusing to continue.>Do you drink water?I already answered this. Your point shouldn't hinge on me personally drinking water. Why do you find it so difficult to explain yourself?
>>521062299>Your indian 70 IQ is showingOh yeah you're right, nuclear power is actually booming and will soon overtake coal, oil and gas. Silly me!
>>521062300>Your point about drinking water shouldn't hinge on people drinking waterYou are just moving the goalposts.How are you alive exactly without drinking water? Or are you so autistic that you need me to explain that soda is for all intents and purposes also water?
>>5210623012 more weeks until the green energy revolution, right Sukhdeep?
>>521062300Actually, scratch that. I can make it work in a different way.Do you eat food?
>>521062302>Your point about drinking water shouldn't hinge on people drinking water At no point did I say that and you're dishonestly misquoting me obviously. I said your point shouldn't rely on me personally drinking water and if is does then it can't be a very good point. None of this qualifies as moving goalposts either. I'm simply requesting you explain your point, which you appear to be incapable of doing without knowledge of my hydration habits for some reason. >How are you alive exactly without drinking water? Or are you so autistic that you need me to explain that soda is for all intents and purposes also water?You asked if I drank tap water or bottled water and the answer is no. If you asked what I do drink I would have told you that mainly milk, fruit juice with the occasional beer or soda. Does this knowledge now enable you to explain how this relates to risk management of nuclear power?
>>521062303Uhm no obviously, I'm saying the exact opposite of that. We will be using fossil fuels as the primary energy source for some time.>>521062304Sure, I eat food.
>>521062305>Do you drink water?>No, I drink all these water-based solutionsAs I said, autistic.So, why do you drink milk, fruit juice with the occasional beer or soda?
>>521062307>So, why do you drink milk, fruit juice with the occasional beer or soda?To quench thirst generally
>>521062308>To quench thirst generallyThat's right, but you are not drinking puddle water for that same purpose. Why is that?
Nuclear power is incredibly safe, in part because everybody thinks it's so dangerous that a million precautions are takenhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_and_Radiological_Event_Scale>only 2 disasters rated max on the danger scale>a few thousand people got cancer, over decadesThorium will save the world
>>521062304Eating solid food is too dangerous to be viable, you could choke and die. So everyone needs to throw away their steaks and switch to drinking lead-contaminated meal replacement shakes.
>>521062310Only if you can convince anyone to actually use it.
>>521062309It would taste less palatable and has a higher likelihood of harmful microbial or chemical content
>>521062313Alright so you drink non-puddle water/water-based drinks because it's safer. And why is it safer?Lets forget flavor because it ultimately doesn't play a role in quenching thirst.
>>521062314It's safer for the most part due to regulatory standards and controlled production.
>>521062315Good.So you assume that it's safe because there's a series of protocols that when followed, keeps it safe.So what if those protocols fail, are ignored or are tampered with?
>>521062257>Muh fossil fuelsFossil fuels have been the tried and trusted energy source of humans for thousands of years. Liberals only want to cancel them because it's a white working class industry. Isn't strange how it's only the elites pushing green energy corporations that they all coincidentally have vested interests in?
>>521062204These are just words. Cite a risk analysis with some numbers behind it or shut the fuck up. It doesn't matter if there's a one-in-a-thousand chance for a once-in-a-century nuclear disaster to happen that gets 200,000 people sick, if the alternative is coal plants that have a 100% chance of getting 20 people sick every single year. When you run the numbers the latter is still 1,000 times worse on average.The real reason is that the latter is easier to sweep under the rug, just because it's piecemeal and doesn't make the news.
>>521062240you are a complete faggot
>>521062316>So you assume that it's safe because there's a series of protocols that when followed, keeps it safe.Generally, yes.>So what if those protocols fail, are ignored or are tampered with?Honestly, most likely nothing depending on the nature and severity of the violation. Say even something as egregious as a guy in the factory taking a piss into the soda - gross, but unlikely to do any major harm in the grand scheme of things. Of course, certain types of violation could potentially result in unsafe beverages.
>>521062318>It doesn't matter if there's a one-in-a-thousand chance for a once-in-a-century nuclear disaster to happenYou may think that but in reality that does matter to those making decisions regarding energy production.
>>521062270/thread. Future nuke plant operators would be women and jeets even in the West.
>>521062288Kek
>>521062321And the coal deaths don't. The climate deaths don't. Because they're routine, they're just part of the cost of doing business, they're diffuse and hard to attribute. That's the part you're leaving out.
>>521062316>>521062315>>521062314Samefag
>>521062320>Generally, yes.So, "Drinking water is only safe, until it isn't".
>>521062324>The climate deathsWhat about the lives saved from climate thanks to fossil fuel powered machines?
>>521062324Yes, the potential harm from fossil fuel related energy production is rated less severe than the potential harm from nuclear production. The likelihood is higher but the outcome severity is lower, giving it an overall preferential rating over nuclear. That's how risk analysis works, no-one says you have to like it or agree with it.
I hate atomfags so much it's unreal>Just ignore the nuclear disasters up to this point, we've fixed all that. It's absolutely safe now!
>>521062326Indeed, now address the second part of my statement that relates to the outcome severity. What is the potential worse case scenario of a bottling company producing unsafe beverages vs a nuclear plant meltdown. By the way, that was a very unnecessary long winded and ineffective way of expressing your point, which was simply that water/beverages can be unsafe if procedures aren't filtered l followed correctly. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
>>521062328The average harm is higher by orders of magnitude. Frankly, the outcome severity shouldn't be considered much lower at all, considered over a given timespan. A nuclear power plant gets shut down and redesigned when it kills people, but absolutely nothing happens to a coal plant.
>>521062330>now address the second part of my statement that relates to the outcome severityWhat do you mean? If the protocols of the water treatment were ignored or the system tampered with there could potentially be millions of victims. That's pretty severe.Now, go ahead and say it.>>521062281>If you do explain it and it's not along the lives of my assumption then I will genuinely admit so.
>>521062331>average harmThat isn't a factor though. The nuclear plant would probably cause less across harm but there's a potential it could cause much more harm, and that's the Achilles heel that prevents more nuclear plants being built.
>Russian Gazprom is lobbying anti-nuclear programs in other countries to keep them dependent on Russian fossil fuels>all the while Russian Rosatom keeps building NPPs in other countriessmelly dumb Westerner scum
>>521062332>That's pretty severe.Yet still less severe than a nuclear plant meltdown.>Now, go ahead and say it.I initially assumed you were referring to water intoxication so I did misunderstanding your point. As soon as you asked if I drank tap or bottled water I realised what you meant. Seems like you could have clarified your point much more simply than you did. And now what l after all that you still haven't refuted my original point and possibly not even understood it.
>>521062335>Yet still less severe than a nuclear plant meltdown.This is just an assumption but it's beyond the point anyways so I won't even bother.>I did misunderstanding your pointThere you go. My job here is done.>As soon as you asked if I drank tap or bottled water I realised what you meantI could tell.>you could have clarified your point much more simply than you didIt's better this way otherwise you could go "n-nuh I didn't mean that" or some autistic shit.>you still haven't refuted my original pointDrinking water is safe, until it isn't. That was the point I replied to, I proved it wrong. That's it.
>>521062331Feelings about risk is often not consistent with the actual data. Scientific statistics could tell them the mean damage over time is 100 times lower and they would still focus and fantasize about the disaster movie (despite it being already taken into account in the calculations). Same thing as >>521062215 really. You can say that people are retarded but democracy something something.
>>521062336>This is just an assumptionIt's not>but it's beyond the point anyways so I won't even bother.No, it's the crux on my point. I knew you didn't understand it. >It's better this way otherwise you could go "n-nuh I didn't mean that" or some autistic shit.No, I only conduct myself honestly.>Drinking water is safe, until it isn't. That was the point I replied to, I proved it wrong. That's it.Again, you either didn't understand my point or you're choosing to ignore it by omitting the second half of my statement. It's the outcome severity that makes the risk of nuclear power unpalatable, not the likelihood.
Do you seriously believe in climate change? lmao
>>521062339Don't be stupid. Everyone has accepted climate change as a reality.The argument nowadays is whether it's human-accelerated or just a natural process we have no influence over.
>>521062337Everyone that understands the subject already acknowledges that the mean damage is lower from nuclear but what you and others seem to be completely incapable of grasping is that outcome severity in a worst case scenario also plays a factor in risk management regardless of the likelihood.
>>521062340>>521062339The climate changes every single day you fuckwads.It's global warming that's the fucking hoax.
>>521062341>worst case scenario also plays a factor in risk management regardless of the likelihood.The zero likelihood of instant death all over the universe playing a factor regardless of the likelihood, you should suck my dick.
>>521062338>It's notIt absolutely is. Unless you have some source claiming the opposite I'll gladly read it.>it's the crux on my pointYour point was the it is safe, until it isn't. Which is not a point at all because it applies to virtually everything in life.>I only conduct myself honestly.But I don't know who you are and your first impression didn't hint at this anyways.>you either didn't understand my pointI do, which is why I counterpointed it.>or you're choosing to ignore it by omitting the second half of my statementI'm not, read the first part of this post.See? You are still attempting to move the goalposts. We are now at the stage in which we could endlessly argue about what is more threatening, poisoning potentially millions of people with the water treatment system or poisoning millions of people with the nuclear energy.You never wanted to have an honest conversation, you just had a knee jerk reaction to my analogy, or actually, to what you thought my analogy meant.
>>521062342The global warming is real you dum-dum. No one but schizos argues against it. Again, most conservatives with a brain just say it's a natural process we have no influence on, that we lived through a minor "ice age" and climate is normalizing now.
>>521062188it's not thoughfukushima was a nothinburger with massive overreaction
>>521062345>most conservatives with a brainTo be fair, those are pretty rare.
>>521062197One of the aspects of covid that I'll never forget were all the hypochondriac disease scientist celebrating that we would never shake hands or hug again. The climate fags didn't care how many of us killed ourselves as long as we weren't driving making emissions. Specialists are disgusting diseased friends. I assume it's the same with anyone who doesn't like nuclear.
>>521062344>It absolutely is. Unless you have some source claiming the opposite I'll gladly read it.You're trying to claim that the worst case scenario of nuclear plant meltdown is less severe than a quality control failure at municipal water treatment works? You're being beyond ridiculous.>Your point was the it is safe, until it isn't.No, that was the first half of my statement and you're omitting the second half. Are you being dishonest or obtuse? This is my full statement:>Nuclear power is only safe until it goes wrong though, then it's a huge fucking disasterThe part you're quoting is my acknowledgement that nuclear power has very low likelihood of incident, the second part you keep omitting is that in the event there is an incident the worst case scenario is much more severe than in other power generation failures.>I doEither you don't or you're deliberately misrepresenting it, as per above.>I'm not, read the first part of this post.The part where you once again omitt half my statement?>You are still attempting to move the goalposts.Clearly, I'm not. I'm referring back to my original statement in full, while you keep omitting half of it and misrepresenting it.
>>521062211That figure is such a lie created by the Cato institute it's murder convictions in Texas not all crimes committed. Yes a rootless foreigner is more likely to flee a crime then a citizen who's going to stay in his neighborhood that he lives in good job Cato institute.
Why don't we just blow up all nuclear waste and spread it into space?After all, it came from what was once non-enriched fissile material, and enrichment is just basically taking a lot of ore which was once spread out and getting rid of the useless stuff.Why not just mix the waste back into the original by-products from before enrichment, mix it into a slurry, and pump it back into the mines where you first dug it up? Surely it can't be more radioactive then before?
>>521062349>You're trying to claim that the worst case scenario of nuclear plant meltdown is less severe than a quality control failure at municipal water treatment works?I'm not "trying" to claim anything. I'm outright doing it.Chernobyl had what is possibly the worst possible scenario a nuclear plant could suffer and the the severity to life of it is still smaller than if some terrorists poisoned/tampered the water treatment plant in my city with the intention to kill.>you're omitting the second halfNo I'm not, my own analogy includes a severety factor in it. Otherwie it wouldn't work as an analogy.>Either you don't or you're deliberately misrepresenting it, as per above.No I don't. Read above, and read the previous psot as well.You are the one misrepresenting what I said or conveniently ignoring parts of it.>The part where you once again omitt half my statement?Same as above.>Clearly, I'm not. I'm referring back to my original statement in full, while you keep omitting half of it and misrepresenting it.Same as bove (again).
>>521062352>Chernobyl had what is possibly the worst possible scenarioThat's not true though, the worst case scenario was averted.
>>521062353>worst case scenario was avertedso it was safe until it wasn't then it was made safe again
>>521062353>the worst case scenario was avertedSee? This is why you are not having an honest argument.Now I can just say that the worse case scenario in my analogy is that all the water treatment plants in the world get infiltrated by bad actors and poisoned all at the same time thus killing all humanity.Who the fuck cares about Chernobyl anyways. The issues that made that catastrophe possible no longer exist. It's like you don't understand how progress is made.
>>521062211>It is the same reason the news is nothing but fearmongering>believing the 'its just because of money' liejews just enjoy terrorizing goyim. they know a stressed goy is more likely to bunker down and be obedient than a happy goy. the news use to report nice and happy things when it was written by white people. Go read old news papers. >and the reason we don't see that many reports about the fact that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native population, even when taken per capita.>the 100 million illegal immigrants who are illegally in your country arent committing any crimes by breaking the law by being here because no illegal immigrant has been formally processed by the law like a law abiding citizen would be because that isnt how the system works so i just wrote a study about how the abscence of illegals in the system means they never commit any crime and by using the right words i can swindle you into believing that these illegals by default who are criminals bydefault actually commit less crime than natives per capita even though they are literally 100% all law breakers because YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT who doesnt know how your own legal system worksthats absolutely fascinating, i sure do hate white people now. we need more forigners in our society to run our tech companies because white people bad.
>>521062239You got cooked desu
>>521062354Uhm yes>>521062355>Now I can just say that the worse case scenario in my analogy is that all the water treatment plants in the world get infiltrated by bad actors and poisoned all at the same time thus killing all humanity.No, not really. I probably should have nipped this in the bud earlier but deliberate acts of terrorism and sabotage are outside the remit of typical risk assessment. A proper comparison would be a nuclear meltdown vs accidental water contamination. Not terrorists deliberately blowing up nuclear power plants or poisoning water treatment plants.
>>521062261Yeah but each xyz disaster is more expensive then the last! Never find population growth and inflation! It's funny because in every other regard to economics they're Keynesian broken window economicists they should be celebrating hurricane damage as gdp.
>people start using cars to move around>no traffic laws exist yet so issues happen>"should we create a system to regulate this?>"nah bro just get rid of cars"greenfags are this unhinged, if it depended on them we'd be living in caves
>>521062358>no that risk doesn't count as a risk because it shows a flaw in my argumentYeah ok.
>>521062358>acts of terrorism and sabotage are outside the remit of typical risk assessment
>>521062356I never specified illegal immigrants, but go ahead and keep typing in all caps and inflating the existence of the number of people you're afraid of by a power of 100 to prove how much your brain hasn't been rotten away by fearmongering.
>>521062311I'm telling you it's only a matter of time until they try and ban teeth because you might bite people. First they'll come after canines because nobody needs predator teeth. Then the incisors for being pointy. Then the molars because some "untoothed individuals" feel bad that we have teeth and nobody needs assault teeth! Toothed privilege. Clean teeth are WHITE after all. They will push not just to put us in bubble wrapped vr pods but to chop our arms and legs off so we can't do anything outside of them. Polymarket needs long term bets.
>>521062361No, I mean that's literally not how industry risk assessment works. You would only include external factors like terrorism under specific circumstances, like operating in a politically unstable country.
>>521062193>Correct but the potential severity of the outcome is extremely high.It really isn't. >>521062194>No, the worst outcomes of those are far less severe than the worst potential outcomes from nuclear. We saw the worst potential outcome from nuclear and it wasn't that bad.
>>521062350Is that what it is? Man libertarians are so useless.
>>521062365>You would only include external factors like terrorism under specific circumstances, like operating in a politically unstable country.This is cope. Go break into a water treatment plant, see how long you last.>sure b-but they won't stop you because you are a terrorist it's just because you are trespassingThat's the part that's cope. It's not like the security there is going to ask you for your terrorist ID. The security is there is to provide security, period. Whether you are a fuckwad breaking in for the lulz or a sabotage is completely irrelevant.
>>521062365https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/water-and-wastewater-sectorWater treatment is a matter of national security actually.
If nuclear plants were "Le Good" rich people wouldn't mind living somewhere in their vicinity.But that's a big NOPE.Rich people only want to run them from a great distance, after gobermint (taxpayer) gibs to help build them, and then charge everyone expensive electricity rates.I trust rich people's instincts on stuff like this.
>>521062360Mass car ownership would 100% have been banned had cars reached mass market in 1970.
>>521062370You think rich people like living next to coal plants?
>>521062370Yeah that is why the rich live in coal plants and wind turbines, right
>>521062372No I don't, but the whole selling point of nuclear is that it's super-clean, super-safe, wonderful future tech that makes Jesus smile.But for some strange reason needs to be mile and mile and miles from expensive homes, preferably in another county entirely.
>>521062374This entire post applies to solar and wind as well. You are not smart.
>>521062375Rich people want wind turbines out of their direct line of sight, they don't demand that they be 500 miles away (and downwind).
>>521062371roads were already regulated when horses were around (in cities, anyways) so the point still stands
>>521062376>Rich people want wind turbines out of their direct line of sight, they don't demand that they be 500 miles awaySource
>>521062376>b-but in that case it's d-differentConcession accepted.
>>521062379>Can't grasp the difference between "I don't want to see it out of my bay window" and "I want that shit far far away so that my mcmansion is well outside of the Forbidden Zone when shit goes sideways".You are a disingenuous and substandard opponent.
>>521062652Rich people say they want to be 500 miles away from windmills.What now?
>>521062187I think I've written four research papers about nuclear power being safe.
>>521062187Nuclear power is not safe as in it makes energy cheap.Cheap energy solves problems.Problems that they want need to stay in power.tl;dr Nuclear Power is VERY dangerous to their power.
Why did this get moved to /pol/ from wherever it was after an entire 180+ posts? What is the use of that?
>>521063015>Rich people say they want to be 500 miles away from windmills.Nobody says that
Rich people have the capability of being just as reactionary and stupid as anyone else. Money doesn't necessarily prevent you from making bad decisions, even if it does shield you from the consequences of them.
>>521063523Rich people do. Explains why they don't live anywhere close to them.
>>521063341Where did it come from ?
>>521062187Because the left lives in a world where a word is more important than facts. They decided anything with "nuclear" is bad. Where "rape is rape" and a chick getting beaten and violated in Central Park is exactly the same as a wife who spread her legs for her husband even though she had a headache. And nuclear power is the best example of this; it literally checks every box they care about, but they can't support it because "nuclear bad".
>>521062187What is this gay shit? No. No more nuclear power. I will always be opposed to nuclear power just based on the shitty way pro-nuclear shills comport themselves online.
>>521063954
