Comments by "Zach B" (@zachb1706) on "Here's Why Chernobyl is Still a Massive Problem Today" video.

  1. Again, fear mongering. Nuclear energy is one of the least emissive, and cheapest energies out there. Our current technology and understanding has made instances like these almost impossible. Chynobyl (sorry for the spelling)is a case where money was put over people, it was new technology, and was caused by lack of knowledge and understanding. I would happily work in a nuclear power plant for years, they are easily one of the safest jobs on earth.
    3
  2. Fossil fuel can’t just be wiped out, 20 years is a dream. It would cost trillions to completely change our power grid - and if that sounds worth it too you, where’s the money going to come from? Nuclear power is affordable, does not kill animals, does not produce CO2 (as the construction of solar panels and batteries do) and can be very compact.
    3
  3. Thirdly, a relatively new technology could change nuclear power forever. Thorium power plants are more efficient and the waste only has a half-life of 24 days. They also could prove to be safer
    3
  4. Royz View radiation isn’t deadly when handled carefully, as if it’s handled carefully it can’t harm anyone. And we have learned how to handle radiation carefully. Fukushima for example killed only one worker, from radiation exposure. The area around it is now perfectly safe.
    3
  5. sebrassino that’s fear: an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm. The difference is that the possibility of a mistake is almost zero. Of course back then it was (relatively) new technology Then again, who cares? I can answer: your way of life. We are reliant on electricity, a switch to renewable sources would drive up prices and in the end the poor will be living a terrible life, one without electricity. Nuclear isn’t the answer, but a part of it. It partnered with other sources could keep prices low, and emissions the same.
    2
  6. sebrassino c solar panels produce around 20 grams of carbon per kWh, seeing as the us used 3.82 trillion kilowatt hours in 2017, it will still produce 7640000000 kg of carbon-dioxide. Nuclear produces none
    2
  7. One issue is the dangerous radiation. It’s the inverse of having a short half-life. In uranium the particles slowly decay, delivering a slow let off of radiation. Thorium decays extremely quickly, releasing radiation extremely quickly.
    2
  8. The scans hardly effect you, the rate of radiation is small, and the time exposed is slim. By the way, just because there’s radiation doesn’t make it dangerous. Any electronic device around you produces radiation
    2
  9. And cancer rates aren’t rising, but our speed of recognising the cancer is increasing. This means more people survive, but some are misdiagnosed with malignant cancer, as it’s indiscernible from benign
    2
  10. You can’t hate climate change and nuclear power. Renewable energy isn’t the “set and forget” spice you think it is, the price of building the panels are tremendous. It is impossible to to retain our quality of life with a 100% renewable energy source... except nuclear! It is the most efficient energy source, it is one of the cheapest - and with our current understanding and knowledge - is as safe as any other. Choose your path. Nuclear? Or climate change?
    2
  11. Look it up
    2
  12. Ankur Ghosh ok
    2
  13. Genesis rain money is one of the biggest factors setting us apart from other species. Where other animals seperate by groups and leaders, we have invented an important system that promotes productivity. Now let me ask you: where’s the money for these “renewable” energy sources going to come from? Welfare? Military? Schooling?
    1
  14. MatchstalkMan except many of the facts are exaggerated. The part about the explosion being 5 MT was completely wrong, with actual calculations being around 5 kT.
    1
  15. Johnathan Chew I can’t find anywhere confirming this part of the story was fiction.
    1
  16. Agreed, the show has misrepresented much of the information.
    1