> Its failure in 1975 caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history at an estimated 171,000 deaths and 11 million displaced.[1] The dam was subsequently rebuilt.
By the time the flood wave rolled past Baghdad and exhausted itself, as many as one and a half million people could be dead.
1 - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/02/a-bigger-proble...
While a dam failure may kill more people, a nuclear disaster can leave a place uninhabitable for a thousand years. Radiation sickness and damage is also arguably scarier to the public than risk of physical harm from a dam failure.
A lot of people have some religious argument against Nuclear power - I'm not one of them, but a lot of other people seem to downplay the real risks.
Now im being downvoted because dams kill more people when they fail. I'm sure they do! But that doesn't change the fact that [people other than myself] will continue to oppose nuclear because of its negative PR
I think the issue is that nuclear power is intimately linked to nuclear weapons. As a result, you end up with images like these in the public imagination (Simpsons clips), which have no foundation in reality:
Nuclear fission, right? And let's not forget that coal mining accidents are equally catastrophic for the families of the victims.
>theres no clear reason why humans should be consuming so much electricity and energy
On the contrary, we have no choice but to consume more power. This isn't just a matter of wanting more things: it's about survival.
The talk is about climate change and animal extinctions right now but there's an unlimited number of additional environmental problems to solve if we and our fellow organisms are to survive. Warming, meteor strikes, supervolcanoes, the next ice age -- these are are just four of the known problems.
So we have no choice but to continue to increase our scientific knowledge, technology and wealth. This entails the efficient and safe wielding of greater and greater quantities of energy.
Over the long term, there is no shortage of energy. Unless you're going to argue about Dyson-sphere limits, the Sun provides an amount of energy far in excess of what we'd need. On that scale, the total energy available through fossil fuels and nuclear fission is a drop in the proverbial ocean.
Secondly, many people have become rich due to oil. Those same companies and tycoons pay off politicians hugely.
I completely agree on your second point. It is all about profit.
it is all about the profit for them. genuinely scared of how powerful they are
In my comment, I described that some business owners who fund right wing politicians feel that there is a globalist conspiracy to cut into their biz profit margins, by penalizing carbon waste.
Hence, they feel (((regulation))) is a conspiracy against their personal business empires.
This is all my analysis. It is not to say that I believe people who believe in regulations are Jewish, and that they should be penalized for this.
So I am upset that people downvoted me, if they thought I am an anti-semite
To confirm this, you could just look at the politicians they fund. Hint, they aren't pro-Globalism.
So I don't appreciate that people are downvoting me for using ((())) when I was using it to describe someone's views, not my own
When dealing with politics, people signal who they are based on what actions they actually do. When you research people who are anti-regulation, you may notice some trends.
Since you believe in censoring my discussion of these types of people, the reader will need to google this elsewhere, since apparently to satisfy you, I must not inject one word of potentially controversial information that might offend even just one person
If that level of restraint doesn't interest you, HN might not be the place you want to discuss these types of topics. Regardless of your position, HN members will downvote and flag uncivil and flamewar inciting language.
one day it will be ((())), the next day, someone may be offended that someone is criticizing their company for a product failure, such as at Samsung. This stifled debate of any kind, in my opinion, because there will always be someone who stands to lose something and therefore be offended by a debate that affects their vested interests negatively
If this is something you're concerned about, I suggest taking some time away from commenting on contentious issues (even those you may only suspect are contentious) until you get a better understanding of HN community standards and behavior. For example, if you're going be offended if people downvote your comments and continue to comment on being downvoted, you're going against community guidelines and likely going to attract even more downvotes.