Hey guys I need help with a poll real quick! Can you take it? 1 question.

[DeletedUser]

My counter is that the number of deaths were relative to begin with, not absolute. So the number of people working doesn't really matter as the deaths were per trillion kWhr produced

And she's right a meltdown would be terrible but they happen extremely infrequently. The biggest danger of nuclear is probably not even the radioactivity, but the people working there. The meltdowns that have happened were caused by people not following regulations.

But nuclear energy is a relatively new technology, whose to say things won't get worse for it?

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Wait! This isn't over! I was all ready to consider nuclear energy as perhaps the safest means of energy but I brought it up in conversation with a chemistry professor I know and she brought up some good points! She disagreed and instead said solar power is actually closer to being the safest.

You have to consider that while less people have died while working with nuclear energy, you have to also consider the fact that less people work with nuclear energy, while way more do in every other area of energy, such as solar and oil, etc. There are also way less nuclear power plants than other energy structures (oil rigs, etc). She also stated that given the potential damage a nuclear meltdown could cause to a city it isn't the safest, even though she admitted that most people imagine a meltdown worst than it actually is.

Counter?

i would just like to say that i said solar was the safest before

But nuclear energy is a relatively new technology, whose to say things won't get worse for it?

mostly the laws of physics and human progress but one of those is admittedly very unreliable.
Also if you are gonna start fearing technology because it's new then you should really be afraid of your smart phone, not a nuclear power plant.

 

[DeletedUser]

But nuclear energy is a relatively new technology, whose to say things won't get worse for it?

What things?
Regardless, I don't think assumptions like that should be made without any basis. Relative to steam power nuclear energy is young, yeah, but compared to the majority of new technologies - most notably the digitization of literally everything thanks to computers (the most general definition of the word) and everything that followed from that - nuclear energy is pretty old and established. It's unlikely a significant new discovery will be made relating to the traditional nuclear power plant. For something like thorium-based power plants your arguments could stand but that's also probably the reason why they aren't being built yet.

Shadis well with all the expert debaters in the thread I was convinced anything I said would always be proven wrong. (and wow Skully did just a minute before I wrote this )

Don't feel discouraged to keep posting if I haven't convinced you yet! If a good point is made I'll always acknowledge and maybe chance my stance. I try to follow facts and logic, use those against me and I'm defeated

I'm always up for a debate under one precondition: try to make good posts like sandip and shadis have been doing, not like archon

 

[DeletedUser33530]

I'm always up for a debate under one precondition: try to make good posts like sandip and shadis have been doing, not like archon