Thank you for this. It's my first time learning about it. I'm almost happy it's unknown since this is such a better argument against nuclear power than 3 Mile etc. Although I suppose for it to be an effective scare tactic you'd have to ask yourself some tricky questions about how much you value indigenous lives over corporations...

Not exactly:

> Approximately one month after the spill, the Puerco River had regained normal levels of salinity, acidity, and radioactivity at low flow levels, with contaminants being detectable only after heavy rains.

Natural uranium is mildly radioactive, but it was a uranium mine. The radioactivity was there before they started. They managed to move it around some. The damage was at least as much attributable to the chemical contaminants which would be present in any similar mining incident regardless of what they were mining.

Saying that it was worse than Three Mile Island is a low bar. Three Mile Island wasn't exactly Chernobyl.

Take a look at the hanford site if you want to be scared. And look at where it is, note that's the Columbia river, which rolls right through northern portland. Or if you don't care about people, it also powers most of the data centers in the northwest. And is right near where most of the hops are grown (won't someone think of the beer!).

https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/AboutHanfordCleanup

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hanford+Site/@46.5656811,-...

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Portland+International+Air...

Note that Hanford Reach and the Savannah River site are some of the most ecologically successful areas in the United States, much better than National Parks and National Forests. That's because they're surrounded by razor-wire fences and contaminated enough that no sane persons wants to go near them.

Go Nuclear!

Yup, I've visited the site and walked up to the reactor face! I think the thing about Church Rock that struck me was the absolute negligence demonstrated throughout. There's certainly neglect at Hanford, but to my understanding none of that is due to the design of it when it was active.

That area also has lots of Bitcoin mining operations. All of society is at risk over here.

Definitly, the world would be much worse off without the blockchain!

Highly radioactive materials are couriered around all the time for medical purposes.

Edit: my point being, dangerously radioactive materials are valuable products of nuclear power, not just pollution that comes as a side effect.

> how much you value indigenous lives over corporations...

Why is this the dichotomy for supporting modern nuclear power plants? Or in this case a uranium processing plants?

Especially compared to burning burning and mining coal.

It's not. The point is that antagonists of nuclear power need scary scenarios to make it effective, and "poisoning tons of people that you don't care about" isn't one of them.

If you want an argument against new nuclear power, you need to look no further than at the costs of production:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...

That's a projected 92£ per MWh, with likely further costs increases.

Compare that to currently around 60€ / MWh for new solar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

It’s too bad that the anti nuclear green activists succeeded. We could be on our way to achieving a realistic 0 carbon future by now.

> human life > profits

We shouldn't have cars then, or motorcycles. We definitely shouldn't have horse riding schools - horse riding is 20x more dangerous than riding a motorcycle, and the only reason you start a business offering it is to profit, thus you're profiting off human death.

Right?

It seems like it matters that the people riding horses and motorcycles are choosing to do that. No one chooses to have a radioactive cloud come kill them.

Planes are a risk even if you are not inside one. If they have an accident they can crash in your home. Cars actually can crash in your home or run over you while you are in the sidewalk.

A dam can break and flood a whole city. A coal electric plant produce soot and other forms of contamination. (Even radioactive contamination https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... )

And it should be up to people whether they are exposed to those things or not, which to a degree it is but obviously could be more so.

Modern life is an incredible testament to the power of the profit motive. It is a supremely ironic outcome but prioritising profits is generally more effective at promoting human life than directly prioritising lives.

And people can't just choose not to face any risk. We can't possibly generate enough resources in terms of food and goods for people to live risk-free lives. Since they are going to face risk anyway, there is good reason to make sure they are facing profitable risks. It is much better to be facing a insignificant risks from nuclear power than the substantial risks of expensive electricity.

That ignores the massive regulatory frameworks in place around the world as well as the phenomenon of externalities and assumes a world without them.

> And people can't just choose not to face any risk

People should never be forced to face risk was my point, not that all risk is avoidable.

That's one of my litmus tests it's one thing if people sign up for a risk, another when it's being imposed on them.

I see you arguing that necessary risks are a society wide decision. Which I agree with. Which means arguing from that point is fair. Someone that argues otherwise I have no idea what to say about that.

I can't choose to not be affected by the industrial complex required to manufacture and maintain planes and vehicles. We all breath toxic air and eat contaminated food. Doesn't matter if you only eat vegetables, or meat, or fish.

The comment you are responding to didn't express indifference to "indigenous lives", but attributed it to others. Attacking them as though they said people shouldn't care about them seems weird and inappropriate to me. They clearly implied people should, but may not.

Thank you. Yes, that was my point.