• SomeLemmyUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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
        9
        ·
        8 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
          1
          ·
          7 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
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 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
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 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
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  7 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

                  • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 days ago

                    Speaking of strawmen, no one said nuclear energy is good for the environment. Nice job using exactly what you accuse others of doing, though. Spot on projection.