4 ms·
Yup, the problem with nuclear is not the safety of the technology as such, the problem is the combination of two things: * People's greed, stupidity and lazine
by brazzy 7y ago
Yup, the problem with nuclear is not the safety of the technology as such, the problem is the combination of two things:
* People's greed, stupidity and laziness means that in practice, there is no such thing as a safe technology.
* A nuclear reactor is pretty much the only thing where a local fuckup can have globally disastrous consequences
- emsign 7y agoOr you could say nuclear power isn't for humankind, at least not in their current irresponsible state.
- H8crilA 7y ago> * A nuclear reactor is pretty much the only thing where a local fuckup can have globally disastrous consequences As opposed to a distributed fuckup that has >95% probability of failure.
- tempguy9999 7y agoThere is 100% failure probability for everything
- H8crilA 7y agoYes, correct :) I meant within next 100 years or so. On a predefined time horizon.
- tempguy9999 7y agoIt's unclear what high probabliity, distributed fuckup you're talking about. Climate change? In that case I'm entirely with you but that's a result of the same short-termism I mentioned. I am horribly certain we've painted ourselves into a corner.
- H8crilA 7y agoClimate change, yes.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago>* A nuclear reactor is pretty much the only thing where a local fuckup can have globally disastrous consequences Hydro-electric wants you to hold its beer. Over the timeline that civilian nuclear has existed dams going pop has killed a lot more people and caused more destruction than nuclear. The fact that the consequences are "global" is mostly a reflection of how good we are at measuring radiation. While (for example) Chernobyl going pop was detectable over much of Europe the actual amount of radiation was of basically no consequence (i.e. less than more local sources of air pollution) except in the immediate vicinity.