4 ms·
> If you consider the climate and consequent human life costs of fossil energy sources, the risk of a nuclear disaster does not look very scary. The risks of t
by AnonCoward42 4y ago
> If you consider the climate and consequent human life costs of fossil energy sources, the risk of a nuclear disaster does not look very scary.
The risks of these are not connected, but add up. It's also a bit weird that people are so sure we can reverse the climate change, while forgetting that we can definitely reduce radioactive emission, but see it as a good trade to have more radioactive pollution.
- tsimionescu 4y agoRadioactive pollution turns out to be a much lesser danger to the environment than CO2 (in the long term). The Chernobyl exclusion zone is currently a haven of biodiversity, while the world overall is going through the largest mass extinction event probably since the dinosaur meteor.
- AnonCoward42 4y ago> The Chernobyl exclusion zone is currently a haven of biodiversity, while the world overall is going through the largest mass extinction event probably since the dinosaur meteor. Are you aware that climate change is not a local thing? Therefore you contradict yourself in the same sentence.
- tsimionescu 4y agoI don't understand what you mean. My point was that the worse ever nuclear power plant accident has hurt the planet far less than man-made global warming. So, if (taking this to an absurd extreme) we went hard on nuclear and there was a Chernobyl every, say, 20 years - but we got rid of all fossil fuel electricity and heating plants - the planet would probably overall be in better shape.