Asklemmy

43939 readers

1028 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What's some really unpopular opinion you have? (lemmings.world)

submitted 1 year ago by rikudou@lemmings.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

771 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it's actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that's really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you take all operational nuclear reactors safety records into account from all countries in the world, including all meltdowns and near meltdown disasters, it's still by far safer and has resulted in less deaths and long term illness than any fossil fuel, on every single metric.

True that newer style reactors are far safer, but that's the point. If we had started to transition in the 70's into nuclear power, we would have made a massive dent in climate change and set the stage to transition into full clean renewable energy sources and along the way improved regulations and engineering standards for existing nuclear plants.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, BUT the risk isn't distributed like the rest. One Reactor could displace tens of millions of people, disrupt infrastructure, and cause devastating impact to the US economy. That's a lot of risk based on it's proximity. If they could build them in the middle of nowhere out west that could all be mitigated.

[–] Sarcastik@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Right. Most don't understand that risk is not just measured by frequency alone, but also by severity.

Nuclear is off the charts once you consider the full magnitude of a failure.