4 ms·
So... you're saying that people who breathe in dangerous pollutants produced in goal plants had it coming?
by cal5k 15y ago
So... you're saying that people who breathe in dangerous pollutants produced in goal plants had it coming?
- swaits 15y agoI believe the point is that coal plants are understood to always pollute, whereas nuclear plants are promised to never pollute. Can you see where that distinction is important?
- sigzero 15y agoI have never seen that second assertion.
- roel_v 15y agoWho has ever promised that nuclear plants will never pollute? That's a ludicrous statement to make, and it's almost as ludicrous to state that someone respectable has ever promised so.
- swaits 15y agoExcuse me, but if a nuclear plant pollutes, specifically in the form of un-contained radiation, that's considered a failure, right?
- roel_v 15y agoYes, what's your point? Option 1: coal plant that, statistically and averaged over all plants, kills x amount of people every day of the year (through exhaust pollution, killed miners, etc.) Option 2: nuclear plant that kills y amount of people, averaged the same; direct kills through accidents + indirect through increased cancer risks (discounted for natural occurrences of those cancers etc.) When x > y, it's better to use nuclear. And y, despite the Fukushima fear mongering, is quite small. The matter is not 'nuclear can fail, so we shouldn't use it'; the matter is 'which one has the lowest overall cost' (cost taking into account lives, health risks, economic risks etc); and then choosing that one.