it literally isn’t, why people are saying this? the fossil part comes from being, well fossilized organic material, hence hidrocarbon rich, nuclear isn’t tthat, it’s not renewable but is clean energy.
I could look up photos of people hurt at a wind farm or something, but we would both agree of the utter ridiculousness of it, of it being a rare and freak ocurrance, numbers don’t lie as nuclear having a low death per kW ratio.
If you add up the total number of deaths since nuclear inception in the 50s then ramp up the attributed deaths to the maximum number of possible deaths, the total rounding up, is 102,000. Coal alone exceeds that by estimates millions every year.
it literally isn’t, why people are saying this? the fossil part comes from being, well fossilized organic material, hence hidrocarbon rich, nuclear isn’t tthat, it’s not renewable but is clean energy.
Look at all this cleanliness:
I could look up photos of people hurt at a wind farm or something, but we would both agree of the utter ridiculousness of it, of it being a rare and freak ocurrance, numbers don’t lie as nuclear having a low death per kW ratio.
deleted by creator
Its not matter that people die, because they do and will from anything, it is how many
This graphic is incorrect.
How?
Many, many more people have died from coal and nuclear.
If you add up the total number of deaths since nuclear inception in the 50s then ramp up the attributed deaths to the maximum number of possible deaths, the total rounding up, is 102,000. Coal alone exceeds that by estimates millions every year.
I agree almost entirely! So you see now how the graph is incorrect?
Well no, because the graph is explaining per watt of energy generated to deaths.
“HOSPITALS ARE CLEAN AND ORSs ARE STERILE”
How clean they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
they presented photos from the olden ages of nuclear tech
its way safer now btw
same with hospitals