Comments by "kokofan50" (@kokofan50) on "Vox" channel.

  1. Coal kills 10,000 a day, more than nuclear has in its whole history.
    249
  2. Many of which are a lot more like to kill you.
    130
  3. You're completely wrong about the risks. Between the three largest nuclear accidents, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl, only one, Chernobyl, had or will have any fatalities. Of those fatalities, only about 50 are from direct radiation radiation exposure with another 3,000 estimated to die from cancer, but that's so small we can't a rise in cancer in a population of the size exposed. There's never going to be another Chernobyl. Chernobyl used a reactor design which no one else used because of its safety flaws. Compared to coal that kills several times that number every day. Before you say something about wind or solar, they both have higher death per unit of energy ratios than nuclear. You've fallen for the classic trap of judging a few large events to be more dangerous than many many more small events.
    29
  4. Aiden Green That's not what he was saying. He was saying the story is the key part to good movie, and that the inappropriate use of use of graphics takes away from the story.
    27
  5. aj madcapocean Even if all that is vaccines, it's in there at tiny amounts and for good reasons.
    23
  6. sirjsk Do you understand what an experiment is?
    18
  7. Build trillions of dollars worth of batteries with many orders of magnitude more battery storage than the world can build, simple.
    17
  8. The extremes on both sides act like that, just on different topics.
    9
  9. Yeah, a few batteries are going to get you through a winter storm or power a factory.
    9
  10. Taiwan is part of China but it's not part of the People's Republic of China. It's like North and South Korea and East and West Germany.
    5
  11. Good, we’re tired of carrying the world. We’re looking after our interests instead of everyone else’s.
    5
  12. Errrr, complete fantasy.
    5
  13. Erick TG When hunting animals that twice the size of modern Bison killing the prey as quickly as possible was a huge advantage. 
    4
  14. You don't see the benefit of exploring a planet, which we may be able to expand life and human civilization on to or all the advancements doing such with necessitate?
    4
  15. Molten salt reactors have something like a 96% efficiency at burning the fuel.
    4
  16. No, we’re just going through the annual cleaning and rearranging of our house.
    4
  17. NATO has been dead for years, and Trump killed because it no longer serves American interests.
    3
  18. Nuclear is literally the safest form of power we have, and the only countries in Europe a reactor failure could possibly force people to abandon are the Monaco and Vatican City.
    3
  19. Humans have been in a perpetual state of war since the beginning of civilization. This is closest to peace the world has ever seen.
    3
  20. Yeah, because the last time Germany had to fend for itself we got WW2.
    3
  21. So we have 1,200 years of hegemony left to go.
    3
  22. Germany has been the problem. Also, in a break from militaristic tradition, Germany’s military equipment is in bad shape.
    3
  23. A few allies are important to the US, and being in our favor is important to them.
    3
  24. Erick TG You've got your information all mixed up.
    2
  25. Star Light Yes' let's compare apples to oranges.
    2
  26. We don't have to find a planet just like Earth. We'll make them Earth like, and when there's something we can't change, we'll adapt.
    2
  27. Solar flares carry huge amounts of radiation, so they can cause radiation poisoning and death.
    2
  28. MSRs don't just use thorium.
    2
  29. There's, also, no mention of China's aggressive actions in the region. Not everyone is just going to say "Well, Japan is a pacifist nation, so we're thugs let China do what ever it want."
    2
  30. "Fukushima is going to kill us!" The battle cry of the moron with out any idea of what he talking about.
    2
  31. Aiden Green He's not giving his opinion. He's saying the story is the most important part of movies and the misuse of special effects detracts from the story. What of that is opinion?  
    2
  32. You’re information is wrong on all fronts. We can burn the spent from reactors in advanced reactors. In fact, some reactors need something like spent fuel to start them. You can’t make weapons material using a reactor built for generating electricity, and that has nothing to do with why we haven’t invested in liquid fuel reactors.
    2
  33. Considering the reactors specifically designed to burn spent fuel, the number of reactors we need to build to fill the world’s electricity needs, and the tiny amount of spent fuel there is, I would estimate that there’s only a couple decades worth of spent. Also, burning spent fuel in new reactors would leave us with waste that’s more than 96% gone in 150 years.
    2
  34. For your information France has been reprocessing spent fuel for decades. However, that’s not what I’m talking about. What I’m talking is taking the fuel that has already been used in PWRs (mostly gen. 2 reactors) and burning it in some types of gen. 4 reactors with little to no processing. No removal of transuranic elements because those are what is actually needed. Generation 4 reactors are also much more efficient at burning their fuel, and some even use other forms of fuel which are much more abundant than U-235.
    2
  35. That makes exactly no sense.
    2
  36. People are catching on to the “green energy” scam. Deaths per unit of energy include all deaths from mining to decommissioning. Uranium mining is no worse than REE mining for wind and solar, but it’s a fraction of the scale because uranium produces millions of times more energy. As for the spent fuel, it’s not waste. It’s fuel for advanced reactors.
    2
  37.  @caav56  yeah, it’s an unfortunate initialism.
    2
  38. Not really. The big event is governments over reacting. People living around Three Mile Island and Fukushima would weren’t exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, but the government had people evacuated.
    2
  39. Yet, nuclear produces fewer emissions than solar or wind.
    2
  40. The sky is falling; the sky is falling!
    2
  41. It’s 2,000 times safer than coal.
    2
  42. Aaron Lowe, and how long and how much money is that going to take?
    2
  43. There’s a bit different between having to ramp up and down and having to shut off the generators. Also, it doesn’t save fuel. Fossil fuel fueled generator work best by consistently fuel. Just think about a car, nonstop highway driving giving you the best mpg, while stopping and starting in the city has the lowest mpg.
    2
  44. When all you’ve been told is that the future is death and despair, are you going to be enthusiastic?
    2
  45. There’s a tiny amount of it and we can control it.
    2
  46. Turbines just catch fire and explode while not working most of the time.
    2
  47. 1) nuclear “waste” is tiny compared to all other forms of energy. 2) we have reactors in development that can the spent fuel.
    2
  48. American hegemony is alive and well. We just don’t care about keeping order anymore.
    2
  49. 1) Everything produces waste. Nuclear produces by far the least waste, and we actually control it, instead of just dumping it into the environment. 2) What’s the problem? 3) That’s mostly because of people complaining about nuclear. Stop being part of the problem. There’s no difference in the energy density of thorium and uranium. You’re mistaking the reactor types for the fuel. Molten salt reactors are more efficient at burning their fuel regardless of if it’s thorium or uranium.
    2
  50. Neither is mining for rare earth elements used in wind and solar. So we have three options: huge amounts of mining for coal; small amounts of mining for unreliable solar and wind; or a small amount of mining for the most reliable source of energy we have, nuclear. I don't know about you, but I'll take the last one.
    2