/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2709619

at least you found some. let's counter them one by one, these are relatively easy.

first one is mainly irrelevant and compares death numbers. the long-term radiation deaths are not included at all, rendering it desinformative.
the argument agains nuclear power is not based on simple death counts, because they're not interesting. they're about contamination that causes severe illnesses (for human) and stays for dozens, if not hundreds of years. can a catastrophic coal plant failure cause that?

the long-term health problems that emerge from fossil power (mainly air pollution) was and is a problem, true. my personal opinion is that filter and similar technology is not enough in the long run. fossil power should be abandoned right after nuclear, with the same arguments.

second one: invalid (lol "reputable"), i do not accept the oecd as a neutral party and neither should you.

third one: interesting read, but weak. it compares nuclear catastrophes to offshore accidents.
nuclear power plants are IN BETWEEN human dwellings, everywhere on the planet - a catastrophic accident has much more impact on human life when happening inland.
comparing that to OFFSHORE catastrophes might be valid in terms of ecological impact. but considering consequences for human life, it's eyewash to even THINK of comparing this.