19 ms·
For comparison, the "worst case scenario" for fossil fuels is the planet cooking up, crop failures, widespread famine, death of the oceanic ecosystem, and the e
by yongjik 7y ago
For comparison, the "worst case scenario" for fossil fuels is the planet cooking up, crop failures, widespread famine, death of the oceanic ecosystem, and the end of civilization as we know it. (Yes, that's the worst case scenario, but since we're comparing worst cases...)
It boggles my mind that we are still burning oil while opposing nuclear because "it's too dangerous."
- crispyambulance 7y agoI'm not saying "it's too dangerous" at all. I am saying that deaths/TWh is NOT a useful metric. It is a ridiculous reductive way of looking at this that assumes a continuous random failure rate. The same applies for fossil fuels although, as you state, it isn't punctuated with the possibility of an immediate catastrophe like a meltdown but something else entirely-- irreversible climate damage.