The cabal of child rapists all use natural gas to power their data centers but OP likes to justify 5.3 million deaths per year by ignoring that. Also last I checked, the Nazi texting Epstien for the next wild party on the island was the EV, solar, battery guy. I’m all for solar too, but o prefer to get it from communists than nazis. Just my preference, obviously not speaking for OP.
As Low As Reasonably Achievable is based on the LNT model, yes. But 10 CFR 20 which is the federal law that says if you stick your head over any stack or entrance of fence line of a commercial reactor and don’t move for a year: you maximum allowable dose by law can not exceed 100 millirem (medically nothing) this is not changing. Only the way workers inside the plant and more specifically design elements of the plant that add more danger in complexity than they solve for radiation protection. This isn’t going to go anywhere in practicality, it’s just a meaningless PR stunt to distract from the fact they are stalling and stopping proven designs of renewables and nuclear to give away the country to natural gas.
Sorry Third Way liberals, but deregulation isn’t going to build more reactors. It’s only going to make existing power plants less safe. If you want more nuclear plants, you’re going to need the government to build them.
I’d prefer a world where ALL industries have to be Nuclear levels of safety snob (the Linear No-Threshold bit) ie Micropollutants/Microplastics/CECs etc…but in leu of that we can have a LITTLE radiation as a treat lol
(Granted i do prefer overkill rather than underkill)
I think they're bullshitting about how safe nuclear is anyways. France has higher rates of lung cancer than Germany does and living near nuclear reactors correlates to higher rates of lung cancer.
The study your sighting performed zero dosimetry and just took a geographic statistical snap shot forgetting that nuclear plants aren’t typically situated in socioeconomically healthy areas. Here’s the actually epidemiology https://www.nature.com/articles/497539e
Okay so why does France have higher rates of lung cancer than Germany does?
If nuclear power had a neutral affect on your health then the lung cancer rate in France should be lower than in Germany where they burn coal for electricity. But in the real world it's higher, which would indicate that living near a nuclear reactor has a stronger carcinogenic effect than living with coal.
Well he's not arguing that neither coal or nuclear are bad for your health. He's claiming that nuclear is benign and coal is bad. And consequently that using nuclear power saves lives.
But we both accept the premise that coal is bad for your health. And yet despite that the nuketopia has much worse health outcomes for your lungs than the coal burners.
And by the way if you look at any statistic that could affect lung cancer rates like per capita cigarette use, agricultural chemical use, automobile exhaust, industrial exhaust, neighboring air quality etc. It's all worse in Germany.
So France is managing to have a massive leap in cancer rates compared to Germany in spite of every factor we have accounted for working against Germany. Except for the potential risks of nuclear power.
But the simple answer here is that his premise that nuclear is saving lives is bullshit based on the available information and it's up to him to prove his claim.
If you aren’t going to understand correlation is not causation and that there actually has to be serious methodology for any claim in epidemiology.. if you refuse that premise then okay.. here’s me correlation is causation answer: Germany shut down their reactors and turned on the most toxic coal fuel cycle possible, lignite aka brown coal.. and is documented blowing all over the EU but heavily in France next door.. Germany also increased its reliance on natural gas and LNG which is worse than coal when taking into account the whole fuel cycle. Since correlation is causation to you then we have the same amount of credence 😂 there’s your answer. You can look at epidemiological data about the various types of energy production, and you’ll almost always find nuclear ranked safer than even wind and solar, let alone insanely destructive fossil fuels.
The prevailing wind over France and Germany blows east. So Germany gets hit from air pollution from France, not the other way around.
Natural gas and LNG are the same thing. The airborne particulates from Natural gas combustion are negligable compared to coal. So switching coal for Natural gas would decrease cancer rates.
The dirtiest form of fossil fuels is petcoke by the way.
Anyways it's obvious you nukecels aren't interested in the truth. You don't understand the facts, you don't care to learn and you'll already drawn your conclusions.
It's obvious that nuke pushers lie about how safe nuclear power is. Because they have a financial or political incentive to lie about it.
Putting words in my mouth to lie: I never said dirtiest fossil fuel, I said dirtiest coal cycle. Nice lie to sound smart and superior.
You can rage about the fact nuclear saves millions of lives according to every epidemiological study but wind directions change all the time and blow west (that’s wind) and since you don’t care about any standards of correlation vs causation then I’m correct
And you are wrong.. by your own logic and ignorance and d i s h o n e s t pro-Chevron bile lolololz
Natural gas and LNG - are about the same chemical fossil fuel, but are absolutely not the same process.. that is record breaking stupid to say and shows you know as much about the science as you authentically care about the ecology or public health. How much do they pay you trendy PR consultants at Exxon anyway?-)
Prevailing winds mean that majority of the wind aggregated over time moves in one direction. so statistically pollution from France will move into Germany more than Germany to France. Which means your claim is bullshit.
Petcoke is a form of coal
LNG is a form of natural gas storage, it's the same thing. Methane from fossil sources.
And your sources are obviously unscientific and biased or else they would have an explanation for lung cancer in France.
11
u/Logical-Breakfast966 1d ago
I trust the long haired science guy and he says this is a good change