4 ms·

You can start by listing everything required from a nuclear blueprint, that is not required of a coal blueprint. A industry that kills hundreds of thousands of

You can start by listing everything required from a nuclear blueprint, that is not required of a coal blueprint. A industry that kills hundreds of thousands of people a year operating within 'acceptable' constraints, as I said. "Minimising disaster to nill" is a absolute and ridiculous fallacy, require the same of coal and see what the costs tally to. We are past the point where we can entertain fictions like "economics" and "trends" and treat them like they were carved from the gaze of Kek on the buttoks of the whore of Babylon, towering over the trembling spirit of powerless men. Seriously "trends" "economics" wtf does that even mean ?

danielbln 10y ago
A plane hitting a coal plant has a vastly different threat potential than a plane hitting a nuclear fission plant, just as one example where just because both structures are "power plants", it doesn't mean there aren't different safety requirements, even if you remove all the "red tape".
- ageofwant 10y ago
  Does it? Who told you that, or is it simply something you believe because its "obvious". Chernobyl's second reactor is happily churning away in the middle of a wildlife paradise. If that is what the world's worst nuclear disaster has come to then I think we can have a good hard look at why a nuclear plant costs tens of billions of dollars, the majority costs sunk into compliance. Compliance required and inspired by irrational fears.
  - danielbln 10y ago
    How about you start to provide some sources that show that current security measures are indeed purely bureaucratic, irrational vestiges and not actually required. Also, your tone is not appreciated and unnecessary in a discussion like this
- coredog64 10y ago
  This [0] is an F-4 hitting a concrete wall and was used to inform the design of containment walls around reactors. Would there be some shitty days for people and things outside the containment wall? You bet! But there wouldn't be any shitty nuclear days. In fact, I suspect radioactivity release would be worse with a coal plant crash as it would release the nasty stuff that we do manage to scrub out of the exhaust. [0] https://youtu.be/RZjhxuhTmGk https://youtu.be/RZjhxuhTmGk

danielbln 10y ago

A plane hitting a coal plant has a vastly different threat potential than a plane hitting a nuclear fission plant, just as one example where just because both structures are "power plants", it doesn't mean there aren't different safety requirements, even if you remove all the "red tape".

ageofwant 10y ago
Does it? Who told you that, or is it simply something you believe because its "obvious". Chernobyl's second reactor is happily churning away in the middle of a wildlife paradise. If that is what the world's worst nuclear disaster has come to then I think we can have a good hard look at why a nuclear plant costs tens of billions of dollars, the majority costs sunk into compliance. Compliance required and inspired by irrational fears.
- danielbln 10y ago
  How about you start to provide some sources that show that current security measures are indeed purely bureaucratic, irrational vestiges and not actually required. Also, your tone is not appreciated and unnecessary in a discussion like this
coredog64 10y ago
This [0] is an F-4 hitting a concrete wall and was used to inform the design of containment walls around reactors. Would there be some shitty days for people and things outside the containment wall? You bet! But there wouldn't be any shitty nuclear days. In fact, I suspect radioactivity release would be worse with a coal plant crash as it would release the nasty stuff that we do manage to scrub out of the exhaust. [0] https://youtu.be/RZjhxuhTmGk https://youtu.be/RZjhxuhTmGk