Nuclear power leaves a long and toxic legacy.

Mr Ruskell said: “There is nothing safe, secure or green about nuclear energy, and many people across Scotland will be dismayed and angry to hear that the Secretary of State is seeking to open a new reactor in Scotland.

“Aside from the brazen entitlement and the message this sends, it ignores that people in Scotland have long rejected nuclear energy. I hope that all progressive parties will unite in condemning this environment wrecking overreach.

“A new reactor would not only be unsafe, it would be extremely costly and would leave a toxic legacy for centuries. It would also distract from the vital work we need to do to boost clean, green and renewable energy.

“That is why I hope all progressive parties can rule out any return to nuclear power once Torness has been decommissioned.

“The Hinkley point shambles has exposed the UK government’s total inability to deliver nuclear programmes on budget or on time. We would be far better investing in the huge abundance of renewable resources that we already have here in Scotland.”

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    That green party estimate is so laughable I’m not even going to comment on it further.

    The WHO states it could be up to 4,000 in the long term, but may be substantially lower. The UN Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation concluded that even this figure is far too high.

    Harvard university says that 8.7 million people die from greenhouse gas emissions each year. And that doesn’t even account for direct accidents from generation and coal/gas extraction. Having a nuclear base load would save millions of lives, and do a huge amount to curb fossil fuel emissions. But “greens” want us to keep burning fossil fuels.

    • solo@kbin.earthOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I find it difficult to follow your reasoning. Initially you said 77 people died from the Chernobyl disaster.

      Now you have opinions related to the different estimations but talk about thousands of people, without retracting your previous position.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        77 people died directly. Up to 4000 (although that’s a very high estimate) may die in the long term.

        Millions die from fossil fuel emissions each year.

        It’s not hard to follow at all. You want the death toll to increase, I don’t.