3 ms·

It's a fallacy to assume future risks can be calculated from past data. In the case of nuclear power this is is especially dangerous. You are simply lying and

It's a fallacy to assume future risks can be calculated from past data. In the case of nuclear power this is is especially dangerous. You are simply lying and dishonest. Coal is not the only alternative to nuclear power. Nor can you stop climate change with the level of nuclear power (and thus risk thereof) we have right now. There would need to be a nuclear industry in virtually every country, including the less trustworthy ones. You think the situation around nuclear weapons right now is contained? Wait until most of Asia and Africa have nuclear plants and can think about weaponization. Dirty bombs with stolen nuclear waste within a few decades are almost guaranteed.

dzikimarian 5y ago
> Wait until most of Asia and Africa have nuclear plants and can think about weaponization. Good thing, that decisions in Europe will stop Asia and Africa :) /s > You are simply lying and dishonest. Where exactly? > Coal is not the only alternative to nuclear power. What is? Assuming you need this in "virtually every country", and some of the richest (such as Germany) fail to implement alternatives, you expect "less thrustworthy" to somehow manage it? > Dirty bombs with stolen nuclear waste within a few decades are almost guaranteed. And again, how exactly blocking nuclear plants in Germany changes anything here?