2 ms·
What bothers me about this argument is that there's plenty of evidence that the overall public health damage from nuclear disasters is substantially less than f
by PhasmaFelis 9y ago
What bothers me about this argument is that there's plenty of evidence that the overall public health damage from nuclear disasters is substantially less than from coal plants working as intended, and as Thaumaturgy pointed out, renewables will not be able to cover 100% of power production for many years. Absolutely we should use as much renewable energy as possible, but there has to be something to pick up the slack until the tech catches up, and between combustion and nuclear, nuclear is much safer even with regular disasters.
It seems like a statistical-awareness failure, like the people who won't fly because they're afraid of terrorists even though driving is far, far deadlier.
- wordupmaking 9y agoWhat argument did I make though? I just found it interesting that this genuinely curious story -- why did one of those 700 barrels react that way -- had literally zero comments after 5 hours on the front page, and was being snarky. I mean, let's grant all that, let's say nuclear energy is 100000x more clean and safe and cheap than all the alternatives. Then why not discuss this curious thing about this most lovable of energy forms? Seriously, I thought the best stuff in science happens when someone goes "hey, this is interesting..." If you love or even just like a thing, kick its tires!