4 ms·

Nuclear power is not safe and never will be. This ship sailed with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are repeating that nuclear plants are safe now. "Safe" of cours

Nuclear power is not safe and never will be. This ship sailed with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are repeating that nuclear plants are safe now. "Safe" of course if some conditions meet. If your car is a parking your probability of dying in a car crash is really low, this is obvious. What really counts is their behaviour in hard times. "If all go well, and we have luck, and everybody behaves, nuclear is safe" is not enough. A natural disaster, a war, terrorism, another lunatic, sadistic, mentally ill or a psycho reaching power (look around)... and your rainbow-safe-dream will explode into a thousand pieces. And then, what? Talk me about what is your plan B in THAT conditions. Hide under the rug and deny all as in the last 50 years?

notRobot 6y ago
Did you even read my comment or click on the source I cited? Nuclear energy is the safest form of energy we have. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nuclear weapons dropped on them. I'm talking about power plants. The same material can be used in two very different ways to achieve two very different results.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  You nailed it. Is the same material. The same that killed hundred thousands of people in a second in our recent past. Is unsafe stuff by nature. The stupidity of people at charge to see the problem or to invest serious money into fixing weak points, makes it even more dangerous, but the main problem remains: They never were able to fix their s*t, and "but, but, more people die by cars" and "we destined one whole page to our emergency plan" are still the wrong answers.
  - emiliobumachar 6y ago
    Is your argument that nuclear energy makes nuclear weapons more likely? If so, could you please elaborate? Decline of U.S. nuclear energy did not affect its capacity for building nuclear weapons, has it? Nuclear bomb decline was caused by treaties, with not a thought dedicated to "but how will they be built?", right?
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      > Nuclear bomb decline was caused by treaties How many international treaties, carved in marble, has broken US in just the last 3 years? Think about it.
      - emiliobumachar 6y ago
        If the US backs down from the treaties forbidding increasing its nuclear weapon arsenal, and decides to in fact increase it, how big of a problem will it be to effectively build the new nukes?

notRobot 6y ago

Did you even read my comment or click on the source I cited? Nuclear energy is the safest form of energy we have. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nuclear weapons dropped on them. I'm talking about power plants. The same material can be used in two very different ways to achieve two very different results.

pvaldes 6y ago
You nailed it. Is the same material. The same that killed hundred thousands of people in a second in our recent past. Is unsafe stuff by nature. The stupidity of people at charge to see the problem or to invest serious money into fixing weak points, makes it even more dangerous, but the main problem remains: They never were able to fix their s*t, and "but, but, more people die by cars" and "we destined one whole page to our emergency plan" are still the wrong answers.
- emiliobumachar 6y ago
  Is your argument that nuclear energy makes nuclear weapons more likely? If so, could you please elaborate? Decline of U.S. nuclear energy did not affect its capacity for building nuclear weapons, has it? Nuclear bomb decline was caused by treaties, with not a thought dedicated to "but how will they be built?", right?
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > Nuclear bomb decline was caused by treaties How many international treaties, carved in marble, has broken US in just the last 3 years? Think about it.
    - emiliobumachar 6y ago
      If the US backs down from the treaties forbidding increasing its nuclear weapon arsenal, and decides to in fact increase it, how big of a problem will it be to effectively build the new nukes?