4 ms·
I was citing facts that clearly refuted your position: > We've had clean, green, safe, carbon-neutral energy for nearly 60 years. And whether the original des
by mkramlich 15y ago
I was citing facts that clearly refuted your position:
> We've had clean, green, safe, carbon-neutral energy for nearly 60 years.
And whether the original design used for those failed facilities was created today or 60 years ago is irrelevant if today, right now, they can cause dirty hazardous life-threatening disasters. Which again, clearly and directly disproves your claim.
- Caerus 15y agoThe fact that old technology which should have decommissioned and replaced years ago is still in use is a public policy failure and in no way "refutes" nuclear as a safe technology.
- Turing_Machine 15y agoThey haven't produced any "life-threatening disasters", other than Chernobyl, of course. Soviet jets went down a lot, too, but we don't judge the safety of Wester airlines using the record of Aeroflot.
- mkramlich 15y agoThere have been no life-threatening disasters except all the ones that have occurred. Got it. I'm moving on from this thread. I'm seeing how the logic wind blows in it. :)