• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    A fair number of Canadians were terrified by the gross incompetence that led to Fukushima and similar disasters from us entrusting such dangerous but useful technology to private entities.

    Another portion likely have familial ties to the absolutely disastrous uranium mining that was done knowingly unsafely and relied primarily on first nations labor.

    There’s also always the portion that thinks anything nuclear is bad because of atom bombs.

    I’m not certain what other people’s objections are, but the first two points are extremely valid and we need to work to regain that trust. Personally, I used to live in Vermont and Vermont Yankee irresponsibly leaked tritium into the local water supply, essentially, because proper handling was too expensive… the corporation then proceeded to declare bankruptcy and pay out investors before placing the burden of clean up primarily on tax payers.

    We need to do nuclear right, it should be entirely government run - no neoliberal bullshit involving private companies like AirCanada.

    • someguy3
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve had too many mind numbing conversations and I think many are afraid because it can’t be literally 10,000% safe. That somewhere, somehow, somewhat, anything, possibly, could, maybe, anything built by man may fail. Therefore!1!1

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly, with this type of playing into fears NOTHING is safe enough to rely on. Come the fuck on

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          One thing I’ve found helpful is to shift the conversation to how unsafe coal, oil, and LNG reactors are.

          Nuclear tends to be “Go big or go home” fears but regular power generation is also quite dangerous… I.e. oil trains derailing and constant toxic exposure.

          • saigot
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Coal plants produce a lot more radiation than nuclear has.

          • Fades@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes you’re absolutely right, it’s just an uphill battle as you are aware no doubt. Thank you out of control corporate precedence and greed, so much propaganda and corruption

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yea, those people we can convince. Especially if we’re talking fail safe reactor designs like Thorium MSR. Nuclear technology is way beyond what it was in the 70s when most existing reactors were commissioned.

        • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve yet to see someone who thinks they will meltdown. Most people I’ve spoke too do not think that any agency can be responsible for a toxic material warehousing for the next how ever many centuries. Its not like this stuff generates any profits just sitting there.

          • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nuclear waste is a problem we’ve got some good headway on. Our current reactors suck, but there are reactor designs to allow fuel reenrichment and some reactor models that consume waste and exhaust it to the point of being essentially safe to handle. In the grand scheme of things consumer reactor waste isn’t a serious problem… most of the awful waste issues come from military reactors like those on aircraft carriers and submarines.

        • someguy3
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think you can. You tell them that and it’s always the same “somewhere, somehow, something, …”. That’s why it’s mindnumbing.

      • baconisaveg
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How many of that 55% want the plant to be within 50km’s of them though? I’m guessing that number is a lot lower.

        • someguy3
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Much rather that than a coal plant within 50 km.

    • Dearche
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Every single point here is the same issues that go into every industry, especially important ones like energy. And nuclear is a far better option compared to any fossil fuel industry anyways.

      Besides, the more electricity we generate, the less excuse we have to rely on natural gas for heating, which is one of the top sources of carbon in Canada. Thankfully because hydro generates like 70% of all of Canada’s electricity, but there’s a serious limit to that considering that most of that hydro is generated on the Eastern half of the country and the prairies have almost no waterfalls.

    • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some people live near the plants and watch the grift and excess through the fence. The nuclear industry in Canada is a jobs program. “Hide and seek for 2 grand a week”