De-regulating nuclear power is dumb, dangerous, and expensive

[JoeyJoystick]

Do your own homework.

Hi Lord of Planar,

Exactly. If you make a claim, you need to be able to back it up, but if you challenge a claim, you need to first provide the evidence against the claim first. Is DP not based on that very premise?

Having said that, I am a lefty... I think in Europe the left in general used to be anti-nuclear. But a seismic shift has occurred in the past 10 years where climate change, Ukraine, and new technology have made it clear to many people that the benefits outweigh the risks. Right now, it is safe to say that the left in general supports nuclear energy. But you still have some eco-parties and small fringe parties on the extreme left that do indeed oppose to anything nuclear. I have honestly no idea if you observe a similar shift in the US. Would be interesting to hear from you.

Yes, there are a lot of tree huggers among the left. But you can't deny there is also a lot of science deniers on the right. Probably balances out a little.

Take you and me, politically we are at opposing ends, but when it comes to this we are on the same level. The common ground here is science.

Joey

 

[Michael Cole]

Hi Volunteer,

Of course I wouldn't wanna have a nuclear waste pile in my neighbourhood. But I would not object to the responsible storage of nuclear waste. And just as I would not like a steel mill or a refinery in my neighbourhood, I wouldn't like a waste facility in my yard either. And you know what, the government has recognized this years ago and decided to create industrial zones to put these boys together. Away from neighbourhoods. So what exactly is your point here?

Nuclear waste does not represent the kind of danger it did back in the 80's. Great progress has been made in reducing the amount of waste, reducing the toxicity of the waste and, of course, in reducing the half-time of the waste. In addition to this, we have learned a few things about safety and how to deal with this kind of stuff in a responsible way.

And than of course there is something called statistics. If you include the largest nuclear disasters like Fukushima, 3 Miles Island, and Chernobyl, you are still looking at the safest form of energy on the planet. This is fact. Sorry, I can not change that for you. It appears that your fear is in part based on incorrect and outdated information. Do some catching up and come back later.

Joey

As someone who lives in state that produces no nuclear energy, yet was targeted for storing all the nation's waste, I couldn't agree more.

Keep the waste in the states where it's produced. Nevada's grid relies heavily on renewables - 47% - so while nuclear power is wonderful for those that want it, keep the waste to yourselves.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hi Lord of Planar,

Exactly. If you make a claim, you need to be able to back it up, but if you challenge a claim, you need to first provide the evidence against the claim first. Is DP not based on that very premise?

Having said that, I am a lefty... I think in Europe the left in general used to be anti-nuclear. But a seismic shift has occurred in the past 10 years where climate change, Ukraine, and new technology have made it clear to many people that the benefits outweigh the risks. Right now, it is safe to say that the left in general supports nuclear energy. But you still have some eco-parties and small fringe parties on the extreme left that do indeed oppose to anything nuclear. I have honestly no idea if you observe a similar shift in the US. Would be interesting to hear from you.

Yes, there are a lot of tree huggers among the left. But you can't deny there is also a lot of science deniers on the right. Probably balances out a little.

Take you and me, politically we are at opposing ends, but when it comes to this we are on the same level. The common ground here is science.

Joey

Calling people deniers who have legitamate concern regarding a science is anti-science. The climate sciences have become misrepresented and are used to scam people and money, or for political power. Consider that the attack on people with the name-calling is a way to discredit them, because the facts do not suffice.

Now I do not remember exactly why I said "do your own homework," but I am sick and tired of debating people who debate based on propaganda instead of solid facts. I can not take the time to look everything up for everyine who is too lazy to see for themself.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

I am sick and tired of debating people who debate based on propaganda instead of solid facts. I can not take the time to look everything up for everyine who is too lazy to see for themself.

Hi Lord of Planar,

Couldn't agree more. I normally make sure I checked what I say. But if you wanna challenge me, you have to show some effort. lol.


Joey

 

[Hamish Howl]

Modern waste containment is not a problem.

LOL

They still use drums.

I am all for using nuclear power. 100%. But to say it should be deregulated is jaw-droppingly stupid.

 

[Volunteer]

Hi Volunteer,

I would not object to the responsible storage of nuclear waste.

There is no responsible storage of nuclear waste. The U.S. government promised us sixty years ago that a safe, permanent, federal nuclear waste depository would be built. We're still waiting for that.

the government has recognized this years ago and decided to create industrial zones to put these boys together.

The U.S, government promised us sixty years ago that a safe, permanent, federal nuclear waste depository would be built. We're still waiting.

Great progress has been made in reducing the amount of waste, reducing the toxicity of the waste and, of course, in reducing the half-time of the waste.

Toxic radioactivity lasts for centuries, even millennia. What is the cost of nuclear waste dump security a millenia from now?

In addition to this, we have learned a few things about safety and how to deal with this kind of stuff in a responsible way.

We have learned to just stop this. Due to there being no known solutions to this gigantic environmental challenge, we have learned that we must stop creating more nuclear waste from power plants. Cleanup at just one radioactive dump, in West Valley NY, is estimated at tens of billions of dollars. And that's only one location. Industry will not pay for that. Taxpayers will.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

There is no responsible storage of nuclear waste. The U.S. government promised us sixty years ago that a safe, permanent, federal nuclear waste depository would be built. We're still waiting for that.

The U.S, government promised us sixty years ago that a safe, permanent, federal nuclear waste depository would be built. We're still waiting.

Toxic radioactivity lasts for centuries, even millennia. What is the cost of nuclear waste dump security a millenia from now?

We have learned to just stop this. Due to there being no known solutions to this gigantic environmental challenge, we have learned that we must stop creating more nuclear waste from power plants. Cleanup at just one radioactive dump, in West Valley NY, is estimated at tens of billions of dollars. And that's only one location. Industry will not pay for that. Taxpayers will.

Hi Volunteer,

10 times more people die in the production of electricity processes involving oil, gas, and coal. You are willing to sacrifice these people knowing that there is a technology available that is 10 times safer because you want to save a few trees? I can tell you now that there will be problems with waste. If it is not an earth quake or a terrorist attack it will be a direct hit by a meteorite. Either way, it's still safer.

Sounds to me that you are a rather cruel person. Need to set your priorities straight man.


Joey

 

[Volunteer]

10 times more people die in the production of electricity processes involving oil, gas, and coal.

I'd like to see us reduce our dependency on oil, gas, and coal. They're killing us.

there is a technology available that is 10 times safer

Ten times safer? How is that calculated?

you want to save a few trees?

Yes, I do. But saving a few trees is the least of our problems with nuclear waste.

I can tell you now that there will be problems with waste.

We agree on that. I have outlined some of those problems.

Sounds to me that you are a rather cruel person. Need to set your priorities straight man.

No need to make this personal.
OTOH, I like your postings.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

I'd like to see us reduce our dependency on oil, gas, and coal. They're killing us.

Ten times safer? How is that calculated?

Yes, I do. But saving a few trees is the least of our problems with nuclear waste.

We agree on that. I have outlined some of those problems.

No need to make this personal.
OTOH, I like your postings.

Hi Volunteer,

- So you do not want nuclear, gas, coal, and oil. But you do want electricity right?
- Yes, 10 times safer. That is not calculated. That has been statistically proven from the records. We have been doing this for the past 75 years, so we know exactly how many people die when they work. Google it and you will quickly find it.
- We only agree that there is going to be a problem. You think the risk is prohibitive for widespread construction of new nuclear power plants. And I think the risk is too small to be of concern. And that is where we differ mostly throughout the conversation.

You know what, I am actually sorry for making it personal. But the fact is that it is ten times more safer. I can not change that. I did not make up those numbers. Now you have very strong arguments everywhere along the line. But in the end the result is still that 10 times more people die. Your numbers didn't add up. So there is something wrong with your reasoning. And what is wrong with your reasoning is that, even though it is true what you say, the total impact of your claim is not correct in comparison to conventional energy sources. Ironically, they even have more casualties with solar, believe it or not. Why? Because people fall from the roof when installing them.... I am not kidding you.

I think we should not be scared to use nuclear. But from a purely economic point of view, I hope they pave the land with solar panels for now. Half the price of conventional and nuclear. Sounds like a no-brainer if you ask me. Ok, they kinda ugly, but I'm sure we can find a few places where we can hide them if that were to be the issue.

I can't hide the feeling that some people (including myself) have a tendency to remember the hot topics form the 80s and 90s. We tend to forget that we have made some progress here and there. I was never anti like you, but I wasn't exactly a fan either to be honest. Than a few years back I dove into this. I was quarantined during Covid and watch a shitload of science videos on exactly this. Hence I said; Including myself. Things have changed soo much. Many of the issues back than have been resolved. Some have been minimized. But the numbers speak clearly in favour of nuclear.

Joey

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hi Volunteer,

- So you do not want nuclear, gas, coal, and oil. But you do want electricity right?
- Yes, 10 times safer. That is not calculated. That has been statistically proven from the records. We have been doing this for the past 75 years, so we know exactly how many people die when they work. Google it and you will quickly find it.

If someone does look at those statistics, look at deaths related to wind power. That power field has the higher percentage of deaths.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

If someone does look at those statistics, look at deaths related to wind power. That power field has the higher percentage of deaths.

Hi Lord of Planar,

I guess we both screwed up here mate. Bot solar and wind are apparently safer than nuclear. You got a source? I asked ChatGPT and checked 4 sites myself. All are more or less in line with the below.

Energy Source	Deaths per TWh (incl. accidents & pollution)	Notes
Coal	~24.6	Mostly due to air pollution and mining
Oil	~18.4	Includes extraction, refining, transport
Natural Gas	~2.8	Lower emissions but still risk in drilling
Hydropower	~1.3 (or higher if including dam failures)	Most deaths from large accidents
Nuclear	~0.07	Extremely low, including Chernobyl/Fukushima
Solar (rooftop)	~0.02–0.1	Mainly from installation falls
Wind	~0.04	Mostly from maintenance and construction

???

And I stand corrected on my comment that nuclear is safer than Solar. That is clearly not the case.

p.s. The next time you challenge me, you provide the numbers as well. Do as you say to others mate.

Joey

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hi Lord of Planar,

I guess we both screwed up here mate. Bot solar and wind are apparently safer than nuclear. You got a source? I asked ChatGPT and checked 4 sites myself. All are more or less in line with the below.

Energy Source	Deaths per TWh (incl. accidents & pollution)	Notes
Coal	~24.6	Mostly due to air pollution and mining
Oil	~18.4	Includes extraction, refining, transport
Natural Gas	~2.8	Lower emissions but still risk in drilling
Hydropower	~1.3 (or higher if including dam failures)	Most deaths from large accidents
Nuclear	~0.07	Extremely low, including Chernobyl/Fukushima
Solar (rooftop)	~0.02–0.1	Mainly from installation falls
Wind	~0.04	Mostly from maintenance and construction

???

And I stand corrected on my comment that nuclear is safer than Solar. That is clearly not the case.

p.s. The next time you challenge me, you provide the numbers as well. Do as you say to others mate.

Joey

OK. You are speaking of unproven, assumed death statistics.

I am speaking of actual deaths directly cause by the people in the field.

 

[Volunteer]

OK. You are speaking of unproven, assumed death statistics.

I am speaking of actual deaths directly cause by the people in the field.

So can you respond with your own data?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So can you respond with your own data?

I've seen it before. If you want the facts, you should look for them. Direct deaths as a percentage of the workforce is wind. If you want to add deaths by wind and solar in a way that matches what you presented, then you should look at the poisons during the mining that affect the workers, to make solar and batteries. Then there are what may be numerous future deaths from lung diseases for the fibers aerosolizing and people breathing them downwind of wind farms.

Don't use cherry picked data. Us similar data for all types.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

OK. You are speaking of unproven, assumed death statistics.

I am speaking of actual deaths directly cause by the people in the field.

Hi planar,

Yes sure, because that is what I said. And the deaths in the statistics are much lower than the the number of people who actually died.

And again, you complained about other people not providing data when they challenged you
I even stood up for you there.
And now you're pulling this crap.

People like you are worth than most MAGAs. You're full of crap and never provided anything to confirm the word that come out of your mouth. Useless. Arrogant. Sneaky

Trying to think of good words. Not have any. Not for you.

Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

So can you respond with your own data?

Hi Volunteer,

I doubt it he can. Just an opinionated cry baby. Too ****ing proud to admit wrong and confirm other opinions. Waste of ****ing time if you ask me.

Prediction. He will not provide proof. He will likely never reply. And he will never admit wrong.


Joey

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hi planar,

Yes sure, because that is what I said. And the deaths in the statistics are much lower than the the number of people who actually died.

And again, you complained about other people not providing data when they challenged you
I even stood up for you there.
And now you're pulling this crap.

People like you are worth than most MAGAs. You're full of crap and never provided anything to confirm the word that come out of your mouth. Useless. Arrogant. Sneaky

Trying to think of good words. Not have any. Not for you.

Joey

After so many years. I am tired of the same duscussions over and over. I am tired of people repeating lies on the internet. I am dusgusted that people do not check the accuarcy of what they repeat.

Anyone wanting the facts should seek them. Use multiple reliable sources, and be more specific.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

After so many years. I am tired of the same duscussions over and over. I am tired of people repeating lies on the internet. I am dusgusted that people do not check the accuarcy of what they repeat.

Anyone wanting the facts should seek them. Use multiple reliable sources, and be more specific.

Hi planar,

Well than, if you are tired of that and complaint about that openly, the least you can do is set an example. Demanding that from others and than act as if you're just an other MAGAT. Yet you cry like a baby now, but continue to produce not a SINGLE shred or evidence to counter anything put in front of you. And that, is my definition of vile and disgusting behaviour, and is not worthy of anything containing the word 'lord'.


Joey.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hi planar,

Well than, if you are tired of that and complaint about that openly, the least you can do is set an example. Demanding that from others and than act as if you're just an other MAGAT. Yet you cry like a baby now, but continue to produce not a SINGLE shred or evidence to counter anything put in front of you. And that, is my definition of vile and disgusting behaviour, and is not worthy of anything containing the word 'lord'.


Joey.

I dont really care what you want to think. I have a good track record of being correct and citing material when I feel I need to. My point is you are posting material without verifying. That is on you. I do not feel any need to prove you wrong. I know what the truth is and have better things to do with my time than showing you what you should gave already sought out.

It is your integrity at stake here. Not mine. I told you what to look for. The rest is up to you.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

I dont really care what you want to think. I have a good track record of being correct and citing material when I feel I need to. My point is you are posting material without verifying. That is on you. I do not feel any need to prove you wrong. I know what the truth is and have better things to do with my time than showing you what you should gave already sought out.

It is your integrity at stake here. Not mine. I told you what to look for. The rest is up to you.

Hi planar,

You do not possibly know what I do or not do here so your accusation is completely unfounded. I have all the proof lying here in front of me. Yet your are still making claims you do to substantiate. Your standing in the community? Based on what? Providing proof when it suits your narrative and using that as a defence when you are unable to provide evidence? Funny how you have to show self entitlement as a self defence though.

And you're standing in my community? Oops, I just stepped on one...

Joey.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hi planar,

You do not possibly know what I do or not do here so your accusation is completely unfounded. I have all the proof lying here in front of me. Yet your are still making claims you do to substantiate. Your standing in the community? Based on what? Providing proof when it suits your narrative and using that as a defence when you are unable to provide evidence? Funny how you have to show self entitlement as a self defence though.

And you're standing in my community? Oops, I just stepped on one...

Joey.

Really.

Lol..

Ok...

Believe as you wish.

 

[Volunteer]

I've seen it before. If you want the facts, you should look for them.

Joey just presented relevant, factual, data for you. If you disagree with his/her data then you can do what Joey did and present your own data! Where are the facts to support your opinion?

 

[longview]

Since this thread is about nuclear deregulation in the USA, perhaps the deaths for each generation source should be in the USA.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

President Donald Trump signed four executive orders on May 23, 2025 that violate the Atomic Energy Act and effectively terminate the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its ability to protect the public health and safety in the operation of commercial nuclear facilities. The orders reject settled science on the public health impacts of radiation.

One order will slash the NRC’s staff and subjugate the agency to White House approval of its regulations and licensing decisions. Other orders direct the military and Department of Energy to build commercial nuclear power plants without NRC regulation and oversight. The Pentagon and DOE hardly have a track record of cost-effective contracting and timely production. Multi-billion-dollar cost overruns and years-long delays are the norm, just as they were with nuclear plant construction.

After 60 years of the nuclear power experiment, it is still too expensive and produces radioactive wastes that will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. President Trump's executive orders will not and cannot fix those problems. Turning to nuclear reprocessing, as another of his orders would do, will only make those problems worse, as it has every time before in the U.S. and every other country with a reprocessing program.

There are no known costs for nuclear power. That's why no private utility has begun a project since the last century. No insurance company will write a liability policy for this experimental technology. The industry survives only on taxpayer life support.

Nuclear power is neither green, nor practical. In the last two years alone more new wind and solar electricity generation has been brought online than the U.S. nuclear industry currently generates. It is time to move on.

If any more proof was required to show Trump is an idiot, than this accomplishes that.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Nuclear power is far safer, cleaner, and more efficient than fossil fuel power plants. Strong regulations helps keep it that way too. If regulations are weakened, we shouldn't be surprised if something bad happens.

Specifically because it’s highly regulated and intensely looked after.

It’s not a business that tolerates mistakes and cutting corners well.