• SomeLemmyUser@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

    Quite a few (if you remember not even a fraction oft its life time is over by now)

    Also: radiation doesn’t kill right away. Often you live 10 more years with weird symptoms and die from something like heart attack, so your death isn’t counted as “caused by radiation exposure” but as “died from cancer” or “heart attack”

    • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yes, radiation can kill people decades later, but so does pollution from burning fossil fuel. BTW, your link talks about nuclear accidents, not the number of people killed by nuclear wastes produced normally, which is what you claimed is killing people. A bit of a misdirection on your part, isn’t it?

      • SomeLemmyUser@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        No one is arguing for fossils lol That’s a strawman

        And yes, I just gave you the first link I found, point given, but you wouldn’t argue that nuclear waste is safe to be around would you?

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          It’s not a strawman. It is 100% completely comparable to your point. You’re over here using deaths as a point against a technology when the current de facto standard society runs on us unimaginably worse.

          But keep handwaving and calling actual legitimate arguments against what you’re saying, “Strawmen.” It’s great and doesn’t stifle healthy discussions in any way.

            • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              To be arguing pro solar, wind, water, and social and economic change, you would have had to have mentioned them. The only things you said were isolated anti nuclear rhetoric, lol. Ultimately, I agree with you, but read back through the comment thread, perhaps.

              tl;dr - It was not a strawman, but opposition to your comments as existing in a vacuum.

              • SomeLemmyUser@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 days ago

                Its like saying electric cars are good for the environment just because benzin cars are worse. Its not true. Both are bad for the environment.

                The nuclear waste is a fucking problem, no matter if burning coal also is a fucking problem