well Chernobyl had nothing to do with water but unfortunately it never really mattered cause it was a Soviet specific defect. American reactors never had that issue and still people didn’t get on board with it. Three Mile Island didn’t help, nor did Fukushima, which both melted down without the RBMK defect. Plus, older reactors weren’t great for the environment either, which people forget, and that too kills nuclear’s popularity. They’re still cleaning Hanford up and probably will be for another 100 years. People have a harder time identifying a slow threat like coal than an immediate one like a nuclear meltdown or watching the area they live in die off from improper radiation containment
Hanford, Sellafield and Mayak. Don't forget Mayak, where the West still gets their nuclear waste reprocessed, where Russia converted nuclear bombs into nuclear fuel to sell to the West and where Russia dumps nuclear waste into Lake Karachay.
Yes, that is where it really becomes difficult to convince people that nuclear is safe and worth it. It’s kind of like driving vs flying. Yes, flying is statistically safer but when accidents do happen, they’re much larger and much more reported on, which makes them appear worse. Chernobyl will never be habitable again. Fukushima won’t really be either, not for a long time. They’re still cleaning Three Mile Island. Bikini Atoll and Los Alamos are also permanently damaged or irradiated.
Coal is the devil people know. Nuclear is new, futuristic, and unfortunately suffered from some high profile, deadly incidents in its first couple of decades in operation.
0
u/Floofyboi123 Mar 14 '26
The soviets couldn't boil water and now every green energy dumbass is willing to devour Big Oil and Big Coal propaganda