• @PeleSpirit
    link
    English
    -8
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • @Astrealix
      link
      English
      41 year ago

      How many 9.1 magnitude earthquakes do you think there are? And the reports following the disaster showed that there were definitely ways to prevent it from happening, like, for example, not building it so close to the sea.

      • @PeleSpirit
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        deleted by creator

        • @Astrealix
          link
          English
          31 year ago

          I mean, if we want to go down that path, there’s no reason to think that governments won’t just stick to fossil fuels and fuck us all.

          Even so, it took a literal once-in-a-century earthquake in the right place to send a tsunami to the perfectly misplaced reactor to actually make just one person die. One. And two died from the aforementioned massive tsunami caused by an earthquake that occurs around once a century.

          • @PeleSpirit
            link
            English
            0
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            deleted by creator

            • @Astrealix
              link
              English
              51 year ago

              The deaths came from the, again, once-in-a-century earthquake. Evacuations, yes. Deaths, no.

              “Nobody died as a direct result of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. However, in 2018 one worker in charge of measuring radiation at the plant died of lung cancer caused by radiation exposure.” — Encyclopedia Britannica. (https://www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident)

    • Harrison [He/Him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      The nuclear power plant decades older than Chernobyl that got hit by an earthquake and a tsunami and resulted in a only single death and some expensive clean up?

    • @radiosimian
      link
      English
      211 months ago

      You know there’s a crapload more reactors than Fukukishima, right? Like over 70% of France’s energy demands are met with nuclear power.

      The issue here is that you are parroting the devisive argument that investors in oil have been putting out for decades. You are also ignoring the harm that outputting millions of tonnes of carbon-based effluent has on the world’s population as a whole.

      Gram for gram nuclear is safer and your horror stories should be discounted. Retort:

      2023 Marco Pol…Sweden, Karlsh…22 October 2023Lennard en z’n …United Kingdo…26 March 20232023 Princess …Philippines, Pol…28 February 20232022 Keystone …United States, …7 December 2022

      Cool, keep on with your ‘nuclear bad’ narrative. It does objectively less harm than carbon-based energy.

      • Buelldozer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        The push for nuclear power across social media is 100% an industry sanctioned psyop.

        Oh please, I’ve been advocating for nuclear power since before most people even owned a dial up modem. You younger ones see everything through a haze of recency bias.

      • @PeleSpirit
        link
        English
        -8
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        deleted by creator