272

Nuclear Power Was Once Shunned at Climate Talks. Now, It’s a Rising Star. (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by Sine_Fine_Belli@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

112 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The early and mid 20th century was the era of thousands of Superfund sites. This particular incident doesn't seem any worse than average. We're still dealing with the toxic aftermath of mining and processing all sorts of minerals with no regard for the environment during that time. Is uranium actually any worse than any other mineral in that sense?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not sure "it's no more a local environmental catastrophe and healthcare nightmare than other forms of mining" is exactly a good argument to do it. And as I showed in another link, we have 90 more years of uranium to power the reactors we currently have, so we better hope we come up with some new way to power reactors quickly considering how long it takes to build one plant with the current technology we can come up with.

[-] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

You did not show any such thing in your other link, rather the exact opposite.

By your logic about environmental impact, we should then stop ALL mining and processing activities because they caused pollution a century ago. That's obviously not realistic, practical, nor even helpful. It should be based on the technology and environmental impact of today.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Are you claiming uranium mining no longer causes environmental and health problems on a local level? That's quite a claim.

It's also not true.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3653646/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201047/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020320626

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201052/

I admit, I am only smart enough to understand the abstracts of the papers and I did not read every link in its entirety, but this does not sound like a solved issue by any means.

I just went to the conclusion of this long paper, which essentially says "we just don't know enough to assess how bad it could be, but it could be bad," and I think the final sentence is especially prescient:

Our engineered solutions may well become the contaminated sites of the future.

https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1228_web.pdf

Now, if your argument is that it is necessary to cause damage to the local environment and cause a lot of early, painful deaths, I would again say that is not a good argument.

[-] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

I did not make any claim. As I said in my first comment, I have no idea what the environmental impact of uranium mining is. My point in the previous comment is merely that using an example from the 1950s is useless as we can find similar environmental disasters for any mineral we were mining in that era.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Okay, well now you have a lot more evidence that mining uranium is a really bad idea. Do you agree?

[-] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Will get back to you once I've had a chance to read through them, but I have no reason to think you're mistaken.

this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024

272 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39325 readers

2120 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.