5 ms·
Well it is "probably safe" until some even greater catastrophe then the ones hitherto occurs, then it isn't probable any more. Nuclear has that potential, and i
by stareatgoats 4y ago
Well it is "probably safe" until some even greater catastrophe then the ones hitherto occurs, then it isn't probable any more. Nuclear has that potential, and if you deny that then you are either ill informed or dishonest.
Deep geothermal is what will probably totally obliterate any lingering doubts about the blessings of nuclear, so I'm fairly optimistic about where this is heading.
- koverstreet 4y agoCalling people names for disagreeing with you generally doesn't fly here, you need to justify your arguments. Nuclear has gotten safer over time, as the failure modes have become better understood, and it's always been considerably safer than fossil fuels. There simply isn't any justification for your wild fear mongering.
- stareatgoats 4y agoWell, agree that name calling is not acceptable. But you know, another thing that doesn't fly is mischaracterizing someone's comments. If you mean my "ill informed or dishonest" remark qualifies, then I will dispute that. But I believe "wild fear mongering" fits the bill, but that wasn't my comment however.
- Ekaros 4y agoI think we have already faced the worst possible failure mode with Tsernobyl. That is the fuel going up in the air with burning material. Can't get any worse than that, and compared to produced electricity it resulted in not that many deaths.