4 ms·

> Don't be fooled by disastrous events, nuclear is statistically the safest energy source we have[1], so don't fear it senselessly. The fear of operation shoul

> Don't be fooled by disastrous events, nuclear is statistically the safest energy source we have[1], so don't fear it senselessly. The fear of operation should not be put forward as the one problematic thing of nuclear energy. Another big problem is how we deal with the toxic waste for the next millennia? Especially looking at the volatility of sensible politics in the US, how can you be sure that the next Trump will not just suppress information about leaking nuclear waste and straight up not deal with it because it is “fake news”? The problem with nuclear power plants is that: You have to deal with very dangerous material and guarantee that this waste, which could very well outlive humanity, will not hurt your population. How can you guarantee that? Don’t use the straw-man argument of “Oh ya’ll are just against nuclear because of safety in operation”.

Hammershaft 6y ago
> The problem with nuclear power plants is that: You have to deal with very dangerous material and guarantee that this waste, which could very well outlive humanity, will not hurt your population? It is worth noting when considering this question that fossil fuels also leave dangerous and radioactive waste, but instead of being confined to a dense waste we understand how to contain, it is emitted as particulates into the air that we breath.
- lorenzhs 6y ago
  It's well known that coal exhaust isn't fairy dust, but it doesn't pose a storage problem [edit: on the scale of millenia], so your argument amounts to whataboutism.
  - Hammershaft 6y ago
    It isn't whataboutism if people write off an energy source because it creates visible and containable waste and as a result a much more dangerous energy source wins out that emits much more of an invisible and uncontainable waste.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    Coal exhaust may not, but coal itself does, just google/ddg " coal slurry disasters" to see the impact when it goes wrong.
amarant 6y ago
In the context of trump being stupid, I can't guarantee anything. Assuming sane leadership there are established methods that appear to work well. In response to trump being stupid my only response is that waste management isn't the nuclear problem in worried about when it comes to trump...

Hammershaft 6y ago

> The problem with nuclear power plants is that: You have to deal with very dangerous material and guarantee that this waste, which could very well outlive humanity, will not hurt your population? It is worth noting when considering this question that fossil fuels also leave dangerous and radioactive waste, but instead of being confined to a dense waste we understand how to contain, it is emitted as particulates into the air that we breath.

lorenzhs 6y ago
It's well known that coal exhaust isn't fairy dust, but it doesn't pose a storage problem [edit: on the scale of millenia], so your argument amounts to whataboutism.
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  It isn't whataboutism if people write off an energy source because it creates visible and containable waste and as a result a much more dangerous energy source wins out that emits much more of an invisible and uncontainable waste.
- sofixa 6y ago
  Coal exhaust may not, but coal itself does, just google/ddg " coal slurry disasters" to see the impact when it goes wrong.

amarant 6y ago

In the context of trump being stupid, I can't guarantee anything. Assuming sane leadership there are established methods that appear to work well. In response to trump being stupid my only response is that waste management isn't the nuclear problem in worried about when it comes to trump...