This is a (slightly older) article about Nuclear Energy and climate change. It’s a hottly debated topic in climate communities, so I thought some of you would enjoy to read it.

Another article that brings up some more points against nuclear power can be found here.

I’d be interested what you ppl think of the matter.

  • Gloomy@mander.xyzOP
    1·
    1 year ago

    I suggest you read the article, before you make a point that if addresses just a few paragraphs in.

    Uranium mining causes lung cancer in large numbers of miners because uranium mines contain natural radon gas, some of whose decay products are carcinogenic. A study of 4,000 uranium miners between 1950 and 2000 found that 405 (10 percent) died of lung cancer, a rate six times that expected based on smoking rates alone. 61 others died of mining related lung diseases. Clean, renewable energy does not have this risk because (a) it does not require the continuous mining of any material, only one-time mining to produce the energy generators; and (b) the mining does not carry the same lung cancer risk that uranium mining does.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      12·
      1 year ago

      I absolutely read the article. However it does a sleight of hand that you either agree with or fell for. It doesn’t compare uranium mining to other mining activities, it compares uranium mining to smoking. Radon gas is a naturally occurring gas from granite, not uranium ore per se, though I’d forgive you if you thought Radon had something to do with uranium specifically, that is what the article implies. Yes Radon gas exists when you mine uranium but it also exist when you mine cobalt, coal, gold, or salt.

      • Gloomy@mander.xyzOP
        1·
        1 year ago

        I did indeed not know this, thank you for informing me. In this case I have to agree with your point, renewables and uranium both require mining that can be harmful to the miners and it therefore can not be used as a counterpoint against nuclear energy.