2 ms·

> And because no one really cares about climate change enough to make it a priority. Or maybe they care enough about climate change to not make another long-te

> And because no one really cares about climate change enough to make it a priority. Or maybe they care enough about climate change to not make another long-term mistake out as the solution, only to then have to repeat a very similar situation a few decades from now. Increase the use of fission reactors and you will also increase the frequency of catastrophic events, it will increase the production of waste we still have no real way to reliably deal with, very comparable to the emissions we pumped in the atmosphere because "whatever could go wrong with that". We've been handling nuclear in a similar irresponsible short-sighted way for way too long [0]. So while fission might be a tempting solution to the climate change problem, it also has very real potential to become the very next problem we burden future generations with. Is exchanging one long-term debt for another really that useful of a solution, or shouldn't we rather look for actually innovative and sustainable solutions? [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/

effie 6y ago
The article does not show any reason to doubt safety of nuclear plants. Increased leukemia incidence in proximity to NPPs is interesting and should be further studied, but there are different possible reasons for it. It can be a societal effect/problem, i.e. poor and less healthy-living societal classes can't or won't move out from uncool nuclear power plant towns, but more wealthy or healthy-living-conscious people are more inclined to move away.
effie 6y ago
>waste we still have no real way to reliably deal with What is your idea of a "real way to reliably deal with waste"? Waste in general is stored or burned all over the world. Nuclear waste is best stored, at NPPs or at dedicated sites. Which is already done since the beginning. It is a non problem.

effie 6y ago

The article does not show any reason to doubt safety of nuclear plants. Increased leukemia incidence in proximity to NPPs is interesting and should be further studied, but there are different possible reasons for it. It can be a societal effect/problem, i.e. poor and less healthy-living societal classes can't or won't move out from uncool nuclear power plant towns, but more wealthy or healthy-living-conscious people are more inclined to move away.

effie 6y ago

>waste we still have no real way to reliably deal with What is your idea of a "real way to reliably deal with waste"? Waste in general is stored or burned all over the world. Nuclear waste is best stored, at NPPs or at dedicated sites. Which is already done since the beginning. It is a non problem.