4 ms·

Don't know how the rest of facts check out, but Chernobyl is in Ukraine not in Russia.

SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
In reason six the author talks about emissions and air pollution related to nuclear power. Then shows an image of a nuclear plant releasing water vapour into the air.
- akvadrako 7y ago
  Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas, so it's obviously a pollutant.
abledon 7y ago
article says "Chernobyl, Russia 1986", Pre 1991, [wiki] known as Soviet Ukraine, was one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union from the Union's inception in 1922 to its breakup in 1991. So probably why he mentions the date after saying Russia
- arpa 7y ago
  The correct term would still be USSR.
  - AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
    Oh, come on. And the correct term for Great Britain would still be UK. And for Germany it would still be BRD, and for America would be USA... Note to my private journal about the hilarious history of the destruction of our planet: "In June 2019, an article about "Nuclear Power possibly not being the answer to solve climate change", lead to a public discussion, whether the author got a geographic term historically right or not (with the suspicion, that if he didn't, probably everything else in the article was wrong as well).
    - arpa 7y ago
      No, seriously. Russia did not exist back in 1986. It has nothing to do with the correctness of the opinions expressed in the article. If we were to talk about Germany in 1987, I think, it would be very important to distinguish between east and west, no? Also, hilarious or not, if you make a slip on correct historical terms (as a nuclear catastrophe happening in a country that did not even exist at the time, and even managing to get current geographical term wrong), it does reflect poorly on the quality and/or perceived quality of the whole piece. Come on!
      - davidivadavid 7y ago
        I'm pretty sure Russia existed in 1986. You must be talking about the Russian Federation?
        arpa 7y ago
        no, I am talking about either USSR (if we're talking about country) or Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR), if we're talking about countries' administrative unit.
    - BjoernKW 7y ago
      > Great Britain would still be UK No, it wouldn't. The term "UK" includes Northern Ireland while "GB" doesn't. > Germany it would still be BRD Before 1990 that would've been the common usage, simply because there were two "Germanies" at the time. Today, while technically still the correct denomination, "BRD" / "FRG" is equivalent to "Germany", which is why these terms can be used interchangeably (with the non-technical country name being much more common these days). > America would be USA Using "America" instead of "USA" is highly inaccurate, perhaps even offensive to people from other countries on that continent. These distinctions are relevant. This is not some casual pub conversation but rather it's supposed to be a serious article on scientific and political issues. Therefore, diligence, getting the facts straight and using accurate terminology is important.

In reason six the author talks about emissions and air pollution related to nuclear power. Then shows an image of a nuclear plant releasing water vapour into the air.

akvadrako 7y ago
Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas, so it's obviously a pollutant.

abledon 7y ago

article says "Chernobyl, Russia 1986", Pre 1991, [wiki] known as Soviet Ukraine, was one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union from the Union's inception in 1922 to its breakup in 1991. So probably why he mentions the date after saying Russia

arpa 7y ago
The correct term would still be USSR.
- AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
  Oh, come on. And the correct term for Great Britain would still be UK. And for Germany it would still be BRD, and for America would be USA... Note to my private journal about the hilarious history of the destruction of our planet: "In June 2019, an article about "Nuclear Power possibly not being the answer to solve climate change", lead to a public discussion, whether the author got a geographic term historically right or not (with the suspicion, that if he didn't, probably everything else in the article was wrong as well).
  - arpa 7y ago
    No, seriously. Russia did not exist back in 1986. It has nothing to do with the correctness of the opinions expressed in the article. If we were to talk about Germany in 1987, I think, it would be very important to distinguish between east and west, no? Also, hilarious or not, if you make a slip on correct historical terms (as a nuclear catastrophe happening in a country that did not even exist at the time, and even managing to get current geographical term wrong), it does reflect poorly on the quality and/or perceived quality of the whole piece. Come on!
    - davidivadavid 7y ago
      I'm pretty sure Russia existed in 1986. You must be talking about the Russian Federation?
      - arpa 7y ago
        no, I am talking about either USSR (if we're talking about country) or Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR), if we're talking about countries' administrative unit.
  - BjoernKW 7y ago
    > Great Britain would still be UK No, it wouldn't. The term "UK" includes Northern Ireland while "GB" doesn't. > Germany it would still be BRD Before 1990 that would've been the common usage, simply because there were two "Germanies" at the time. Today, while technically still the correct denomination, "BRD" / "FRG" is equivalent to "Germany", which is why these terms can be used interchangeably (with the non-technical country name being much more common these days). > America would be USA Using "America" instead of "USA" is highly inaccurate, perhaps even offensive to people from other countries on that continent. These distinctions are relevant. This is not some casual pub conversation but rather it's supposed to be a serious article on scientific and political issues. Therefore, diligence, getting the facts straight and using accurate terminology is important.