3 ms·
By that logic, solar, wind, and hydro aren't clean either; they all generate some amount of pollution and environmental side effects. And since nothing is trul
by Lazare 8y ago
By that logic, solar, wind, and hydro aren't clean either; they all generate some amount of pollution and environmental side effects. And since nothing is truly "clean", I guess we can all just use coal, right?
Sarcasm aside, "clean" in this context has a very specific meaning, which nuclear meets. The fact that it isn't an entirely magical source of side-effect free power is not relevant.
- TheRealPomax 8y agosolar, wind, and hydro don't leave a persistent waste product that takes hundreds of thousands of years to become safe to stand next to. Nuclear has a special class of unclean all on its own - it's both much cleaner than coal on the immediate term, and way less clean on the "beyond timescales that humans can understand" scale.
- Ygg2 8y agoSure they do. It's called buildings. Some nuclear waste can be recycled to lower lifetime waste that degrades on sensible timescales, but let's hate on all nuclear power because it's not magical.
- TheRealPomax 8y agoyes, let's confused my statement for hate on nuclear, despite being pro nuclear. Makes sense to me.
- JumpCrisscross 8y agoYou do realise those “beyond timescales humans understand” substances are already in the Earth’s crust? And the longer something takes to decay, the safer it is. Long time scales are a plus.
- TheRealPomax 8y agoLet's not fall for the "why are you worried about coal waste, there are layers and layers of soot in the crust already, and no one's bothered by those" excuse.
- JumpCrisscross 8y agoPumping chemicals in the ground into the air is different from taking things in the ground from many places and hiding them away in one place.