3 ms·
Yes. In fact, if one if being cold hearted, you can say that it could be worth it if we limit the consequences to only "x" accidents with "y" victims. After al
by BiteCode_dev 5y ago
Yes. In fact, if one if being cold hearted, you can say that it could be worth it if we limit the consequences to only "x" accidents with "y" victims.
After all, climate change kills a lot of people, we only have to kill less.
But the problem here is that climate change is not shocking to people. But a nuclear accident would be. In fact, 2 of the 3 nuclear disasters we had are burnt in the collective memory for ever.
So strong action to prevent such accidents are also needed as a communication measure, to reasure the population. Given you are "anti-anti-nuclear", I think it's a good step to reduce the "anti-nuclear" sentiment.
- enaaem 5y agoThere is already an incredible amount of effort done to prevent accidents. The problem nuclear faces is similar to the problem COVID vaccines face: No scientist or engineer with integrity can guarantee 100% safety. Should we tell the public simple messages like: "Trust me dude, it is super super super safe!", or should we tell the public a nuanced story of calculated risks? I don't know whether the last strategy will work, but the first strategy has failed both nuclear and COVID vaccination. In my country we are in a lock down again, because too few people are vaccinated.