Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

NNadir

(37,374 posts)

7. I hate to ask anti-nukes questions involving logic, but...

Reply to bananas (Original post)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 11:59 AM

Jul 2015

...given that French nuclear reactors have a spectacular record of not killing anyone, how is that we should consider the question of making them "safer."

Safer than what?

Seven million people die each year from air pollution. The anti-nuke community couldn't care less about those deaths.

Have seven million people died from French reactors? Seven thousand? Seventy? Seven?

Nuclear energysaves lives.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197

It follows that people who oppose nuclear energy with constant assertions of fear and ignorance cost lives.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Next-generation nuclear reactors may not be safer: French watchdog [View all] bananas Jul 2015 OP

Future Of Nuclear Industry Takes Yet Another Hit bananas Jul 2015 #1

As I've said a number of times, I was told the same thing 40 years ago by experts in the field. bananas Jul 2015 #2

The only people who delude themselves that nukes can ever be safe are those in the industry Cleita Jul 2015 #3

A couple corrections/clarifications FBaggins Jul 2015 #4

Are these the ones that use nuclear waste to operate? lonestarnot Jul 2015 #5

Yes, and others. nt bananas Jul 2015 #6

I hate to ask anti-nukes questions involving logic, but... NNadir Jul 2015 #7

It's always "worth" improving safety FBaggins Jul 2015 #8

That would depend on what you make "safer..." NNadir Jul 2015 #9

Most of those 7 million deaths you throw out there madokie Aug 2015 #17

The ability to make this type of reactor meet minimum safety standards isn't yet achieved. kristopher Jul 2015 #10

Your timeline is off FBaggins Jul 2015 #11

No, my timeline isn't off - it isn't mine. kristopher Jul 2015 #12

Yes it is (both off... and yours) FBaggins Aug 2015 #13

You are quite the character kristopher Aug 2015 #14

Sigh. Can't be bothered to actually read the report that you claim you're using as a source? FBaggins Aug 2015 #15

Exactly as I expected - you are misdefining "prototype" kristopher Aug 2015 #16

Exactly as I expected - you're trying to spin away from the context FBaggins Aug 2015 #19

ROFLMAO kristopher Aug 2015 #21

Your post #10 is the one in question - not #14 FBaggins Aug 2015 #22

Get a life (and a clue) Bags. kristopher Aug 2015 #23

Only one phase of nuclear energy is relatively clean, producing the electricity. madokie Aug 2015 #18

Sorry... that's nonsense. FBaggins Aug 2015 #20