4 ms·
> At what point etc. Your second paragraph suggests that we are not at that point yet. But to be less facetious - after the regulatory systems in the relevant
by einpoklum 4y ago
> At what point etc.
Your second paragraph suggests that we are not at that point yet.
But to be less facetious - after the regulatory systems in the relevant country reach a state of high trustworthiness and no indications of 'capture' + a few decades' buffer for the trustworthy regulation's effect to permeate.
And this is ignoring the question of chances of damage by war and the issue of waste management, so maximum over the minimum period for each of these 3 considerations.
- tptacek 4y agoYou're begging the question. I'm not saying one can't advocate against nuclear power on the merits, either because it's too dangerous or because it's too poorly regulating. I'm saying that it can't be reasonable to do so based on the premise that it causes million-victim fatal accidents, because (1) it doesn't, and (2) other mainstream energy sources do cause mass fatalities and aren't condemned.