4 ms·

What about all of the plants and animals killed from the various resources? Or the land and water that can no longer sustain life because of one disaster or an

• jerf 16y ago
  I'm not sure what you think this will prove, but if you're going to go this route it's going to make nuclear look even better. Much more confined mining operations, much smaller land use (something almost all "green" technologies are actually terrible with, IIRC nuclear is the most power-per-acre you can get with current tech), waste goes to uninhabited areas anyhow (and if we were less stupid about it there wouldn't hardly be any), and take a quick Google at "pictures of Chernobyl" [1] and note how it isn't a radioactive wasteland in the style of Fallout or anything. Very little land has actually been rendered "unable to sustain life"; I'm not sure it measures in anything more than a handful of acres. Hollywood movies and video games are not a good way to learn how nuclear power works. [1]: http://www.grcade.com/viewtopic.php?t=2217 http://www.grcade.com/viewtopic.php?t=2217 - note the greenery all the way up to the plant itself
  • foresterh 16y ago
    It may make nuclear look better comparably, but it will make all of these (oil, coal, nuclear) look worse. When all you factor into the cost is human life and money, you miss the bigger picture of how we're affecting what doesn't have a voice.
    • deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    • jerf 16y ago
      "Comparably" is what I meant, certainly. When you add only negatives to an existing assessment, everything will look worse, but relative positions can change.