3 ms·
with whose health am I gambling?
by jshen 16y ago
with whose health am I gambling?
- yummyfajitas 16y agoThe people at risk of "death from these other [non-nuclear] sources" (see 6 posts upthread).
- jshen 16y agoYou're either confusing me with someone else, or putting words in my mouth. I've never said that we shouldn't use nuclear, that nuclear is worse than x, or anything like that. Part of the reason I have a problem with the tone in the aftermath of this disaster is that you guys are seeing a boogie man behind every question. The only thing I did was question the logic and assumptions of a couple of arguments for nuclear power. I'm trying to figure this stuff out for myself, so I'm questioning things. edit: in fact, if you read my early comment I said this, "Nuclear seems safer than coal, but the knee jerk reaction on this site from pro-nuclear people isn't helping that cause.". That doesn't seem to stop you from seeing a boogie man though.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoMy bad, I assumed you were saying more than you were. Nevertheless, the meat of my comment remains the same. Choosing a power generation source with a front-loaded death risk is gambling with other people's lives today. Choosing something with a back-loaded death risk is gambling with other people's lives tomorrow. I see no compelling reason to believe one is better than the other.
- jshen 16y agothere is also a third alternative, use less energy.
- SamReidHughes 16y agoThat's not a real third alternative, because even if you make less power, you still have to pick your power generation source.
- jshen 16y agoif you burn less coal you put less shit into the air, right?