this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
4 points (61.1% liked)
Environment
4219 readers
24 users here now
Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).
See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Okay. Is it worse than coal?
I believe there is no reason to compare. Different kind of 'teribility', let's say.
It's not as good as renewables
That was a Neo style dodge like in the Matrix.
Nuclear is cleaner and safer than coal.
In fact, a fly ash pond is both radioactive and full of carcinogenic substances.
Nuclear is considered 'clean' in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Radioactive waste is not clean in other terms and their disposal is highly problematic. It replaces one problem with another.. France is a great example of this problem because they are very advanced in nuclear energy. They struggle with this and smuggle their nuclear waste to other places in the world.
As for the 'safe' part, this is also debatable.
For humans see a febr 2025 paper on unaccounted cancers fukushima,
For the planet as a whole see a Febr 2025 paper about Fukushima Contaminated Water Risk Factor: Global Implications
Okay but those are too efficient so the capitalists wont let us have them in substantial quantity. Pick a worse option.