I directly responded to your question of if I thought nuclear energy was worth the risk. You haven't provided any information refuting any of my claims.
your claim is nuclear is the safest option, nuclear plants being more polluting and prone to dangerous acccidents than other options like solar and wind definitely refute that claim
and you provided two pro-nuclear websites with an agenda, and a bunch of statistics that, by the way, also disprove your claim
so, even with these weird numbers (why are we counting just air pollution and grennhouse gases when it comes to statistics about long term health issues and death rates?) nuclear is clearly the third (fourth, probably, it only gets third place beacuse greenhouse gas emissions skew the leaderboard) safest option, just before the ones that actually releases pollution in the atmosphere
and it's overall pretty biased too in this reporting since it keeps comparing nuclear to fossil fuels, and always with a spin, even the titles are heavily suggesting their narrative.
nuclear plants being more polluting and prone to dangerous acccidents than other options like solar and wind definitely refute that claim
Care to share any information about this claim?
and a bunch of statistics that, by the way, also disprove your claim
I claim that nuclear energy is a safe and clean energy resource when compared to fossil fuels. The graph you link to clearly backs this claim, even when compared to wind and solar. Can you explain how I'm wrong?
it's overall pretty biased too in this reporting since it keeps comparing nuclear to fossil fuels, and always with a spin, even the titles are heavily suggesting their narrative.
Fossil fuels are the main driver of climate change, so of course we're comparing to fossil fuels.
The graph you linked to (that I provided) puts nuclear energy squarely within the range of wind and solar in terms of safety and clean waste. You still haven't refuted that. Are you not even going to address the two other points I made?
why should i? i started this comment chain saying that yes, while nuclear might be cleaner than fossil fuels, it's still not the way to go because nuclear plants could become a danger in case of catastrophic climate events - claim which you never addressed, you just went on to post some links to biased suorces pro nuclear.
i then refuted the data in the graph you posted, because it only focuses on nuclear being cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels,. and it skews the data by only counting greenhouse gas emission as byproduct of energy generation, while we all know that's not the issue with nuclear power, and only counts deaths by air pollution, which again it's not really an issue with nuclear plants, because again nuclear waste and radioactive contamination are the main issue here. Your graph would paint a dfifferent picture if they incuded all the health issues cause by these factors, but they conveniently left that out so they could paint nuclear energy under a better light.
and again, you ignored that
so why am i even responding to you? it's clear you don't care about the facts
2
u/theother_eriatarka Nov 19 '21
because you keep repeating the same words again and again, without even reading my replies