4 ms·
Sorry you feel so emotionally about this topic. However please refrain from ad hominem attacks: it doesn’t help constructive discussion. There are facts that d
by avastmick 5y ago
Sorry you feel so emotionally about this topic. However please refrain from ad hominem attacks: it doesn’t help constructive discussion.
There are facts that do not readily line up with the scale of response to the failures that surround the disaster.
Compared to the damage that coal and gas has on the environment and the numbers who will suffer through their continued use in power production or die in their sourcing, nuclear seems a reasonably safe alternative. Note too the many many trillions that will be spent in addressing climate change, again nuclear seems a cost effective alternative.
Taking solutions off the table due to bias, poor data and evidence doesn’t help find a path ahead for power production for humanity’s future needs.
- redis_mlc 5y agoIt's apparent that you have a green agenda, but that doesn't make nuclear reactors viable if you coverup $1 trillion in cleanup costs. Just admit your bias, and offer to pay the cleanup bill - talk is cheap. Also, it's rarely mentioned that during the cleanup, irradiated waste was stored in the port near Tokyo on the docks. Had the wind shifted, all of Tokyo would have been irradiated. The more you dig into Fukushima, the worse it gets, just like Chernobyl - how's that one working out so far? In the US, we have nuclear plants on fault lines and in densely populated areas that can't be evacuated. The insurance liability is capped at very low amounts, again burdening taxpayers with potential cleanups. What could possibly go wrong?