Why are people against nuclear power again?

You are literally too idiotic to hold a rational conversation.
Kill yourself.

How are people dying as a result of using coal and oil?

Lung cancer

>bullshit graph with no citations
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>Making fun of the thousands of people who perished from chernobyl and the babies born with horrible mutations.
You accurately represented the diseases mind of the radiation cancer shills. Now you can go kill yourself.

But seriously, they could have made this graph so much easier to read if they got rid of half those colors and took the total instead of dividing it into each state.

>i can't reverse search

>i think science is marketing

sourcewatch.org/index.php/Health_effects_of_coal
coal smoke is some nasty shit

>its other peoples duty to prove my bullshit doodles
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

>>i think science is marketing
it would still be science if they took the grand total though. Dividing it into each state is completely arbitrary and makes it closer to marketing than actual science. If they wanted to show their results clearly and concisely they wouldn't have split it up like this. As a non european I do not give a shit about each individual state I care about how many deaths per terrawatt-hour each power source is responsible.

hush coal shill. you take more lives in a year than all the nuclear power plant accidents combined.

>thousands of people
wow it's fucking nothing

>if you're not nuclear shill ur a coal shill
typical retarded radiation cancer shill
>thousands of people mean nothing to me
the diseased mind of nuclear power shills everyone.

>INES
Sounding the nuclear alarm over Ibaraki after some guy defeated an interlock and then died gruesomely taking others with him too isn't "major"? OK. I guess they don't want to scare people.

Anyway, in proper analysis you look at
- cost vs. benefit
- risk (probability for outcomes)

Cost is rather interesting since the full cost of decomissioning a hot core is not undertaken yet. And you have to secure the hot radioactive materials for of the other of 10000 years.

Because they are paid for by the government but run and owned by PRIVATE companies that will abandon a doomed plant to its fate.

>Nuclear shills will attack nationalization
>Nuclear shills are full of shit

>Nuclear weapons utilize nuclear power
And standard ammunition utilizes power of chemical combustion. Are you proposing that we count everyone killed by guns witht he coal plants deaths?

if the thousands of people killed by power plants in all of the history of nuclear power are important to you, then the orders of magnitude greater deaths from coal power should also be important to you :^)

AHAHAHAAHHAHAHA

Because they're scared of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima Daiichi. Mind you, nobody died in the latter two accidents, and the cancer cases that will be caused by Fukushima is estimated at fewer than 700 over the next few decades, plus "[t]he United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and World Health Organization report that there will be no increase in miscarriages, stillbirths or physical and mental disorders in babies born after the accident." They're scared because of baseless fearmongering.

A more reasonable opposition is the costs of nuclear being quite large compared to other energy sources. Building a plant costs a fuckload of money, and like said, nobody really knows how much securing the spent fuel will cost.

A more reasonable opposition than the fear but less reasonable opposition than the cost is something along the lines of uranium not being renewable.
Aside from the fact that no shit it's not renewable, it happens to be one of the most common elements in the Earth's crust, and anyway, modern nuclear energy is shifting towards the use of thorium.

Overall, the benefits of nuclear outweighs the cost, at least in my opinion.

two words:
Hazardous Waste

this

because people are bad at risk assessment and nuclear power is scary

limited areas that can support a nuclear power station, must be near water

qualified personnel are scarce

quality security is scarce

if something goes wrong, the outcome is really fucking bad and you lose tons of good real estate

meanwhile for every other plant like coal and oil, they can be built anywhere and if something goes wrong you lose a square mile of shit-tier desert land.

>I don't like clarity in science

>nobody died in the latter two accidents
key word missing, yet

Fission is nasty, fusion would be nice

He has the yet you fucking brazil monkey he mentions how fucking a paltry 700 sadfuckers are gonna probably die from cancer in the coming decades can you read before you decide to shill your weird anti-nuclear conspiracy shit

I think it's because of the harmful radioactive waste that comes with it

What about the harmful mining and factory work required for solar energy
energy is fucking harmful
get the fuck over it
less people will die with nuclear than with other shit by golly gee therefore I dont give a shit

>no harmful mining and factory work
>required for nuclear energy
fgt pls

As a ratio of what's required to what's produced, the people who die in the production of solar energy far outweigh the people who die in the production of nuclear power, but IT'S OK, it's totally alright to be willfully ignorant of obvious information ::))) It's not like there's a difference between a solar farm full of high-tech solar panels, each of which with LODS of solar cells, versus a fatass concrete thing, the computer systems required, and lots of PIPES that don't require VERY extensive assembly line work but IT'S FINE, you can keep pretending to be retired. IT'S OKAY. Pretending to be retarded to push your agenda is A fucking OK. They're the same thing

>it's another Chernobyl thread

Demolition of old reactors is unaffordable.

I believe the reason it was split up is that the ressources each state has varies greatly. Not every state has as much coal to burn as Germany and a huge number of casualities measures up to how much it was used there. Not every state can make use of dams or offshore wind plants. Sweden has a couple of nuclear power plants and Norway has none. Neither of them has any casualities according to the diagram. Even though it says "Deaths / TWh" it is important to account for in which magnitude energy is generated by each type of power plant.