3 ms·
I think the problem of nuclear proliferation shouldn't be underestimated in this grand idea to replace fossil fuels. A few extra nuclear bombs going off per ye
by andy_ppp 8y ago
I think the problem of nuclear proliferation shouldn't be underestimated in this grand idea to replace fossil fuels.
A few extra nuclear bombs going off per year in cities would soon change the desire for this I suspect.
- nabla9 8y agoNuclear proliferation has relatively little to do with nuclear power in developed countries.
- stale2002 8y agoI think that you underestimate how many people coal kills. According to the world health organization, the number of premature deaths caused by coal and Particulate Matter is on the order of literally millions per year. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-... This means that if we switch to nuclear and this caused us to have a chernobyl scale disaster every single year, that it would still be massively safer than coal. And even if we use your ridiculous example of a nuke going off in a city every year, guess what, that's still safer than coal. (This is, of course, not how nuclear works) So yes. Give me the bomb going off in a city every single single year. It would still kill less people than coal, according to the World Health Organization. Yes, really. This is not an exaggeration.