this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
126 points (97.0% liked)

Canada

10122 readers
691 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Misinformation is not welcome here.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
126
Just over half (55%) of Canadians support using nuclear energy to generate electricity (www.ipsos.com)
submitted 2 years ago by ijeff@lemdro.id to c/canada@lemmy.ca
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

I've had too many mind numbing conversations and I think many are afraid because it can't be literally 10,000% safe. That somewhere, somehow, somewhat, anything, possibly, could, maybe, anything built by man may fail. Therefore!1!1

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Exactly, with this type of playing into fears NOTHING is safe enough to rely on. Come the fuck on

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

One thing I've found helpful is to shift the conversation to how unsafe coal, oil, and LNG reactors are.

Nuclear tends to be "Go big or go home" fears but regular power generation is also quite dangerous... I.e. oil trains derailing and constant toxic exposure.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 years ago

Coal plants produce a lot more radiation than nuclear has.

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Yes you’re absolutely right, it’s just an uphill battle as you are aware no doubt. Thank you out of control corporate precedence and greed, so much propaganda and corruption

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yea, those people we can convince. Especially if we're talking fail safe reactor designs like Thorium MSR. Nuclear technology is way beyond what it was in the 70s when most existing reactors were commissioned.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think you can. You tell them that and it's always the same "somewhere, somehow, something, ...". That's why it's mindnumbing.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

Nah, drop a link to the wiki article on MSRs, people are usually receptive.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I've yet to see someone who thinks they will meltdown. Most people I've spoke too do not think that any agency can be responsible for a toxic material warehousing for the next how ever many centuries. Its not like this stuff generates any profits just sitting there.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

Nuclear waste is a problem we've got some good headway on. Our current reactors suck, but there are reactor designs to allow fuel reenrichment and some reactor models that consume waste and exhaust it to the point of being essentially safe to handle. In the grand scheme of things consumer reactor waste isn't a serious problem... most of the awful waste issues come from military reactors like those on aircraft carriers and submarines.

[–] baconisaveg@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How many of that 55% want the plant to be within 50km's of them though? I'm guessing that number is a lot lower.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

Much rather that than a coal plant within 50 km.