4 ms·
Yeah, that was not what I read in that text. The point the author is trying to get accross is that nuclear is being made unnecesarily expensive. Not nececarily
by bboygravity 4y ago
Yeah, that was not what I read in that text.
The point the author is trying to get accross is that nuclear is being made unnecesarily expensive. Not nececarily expensive like you seem to claim with no substantiation.
- eecc 4y agoA point that is a spin on the data. In the 60s they also used to cover homes in asbestos and lead, do we need to do that again? Also flying airplanes was much cheaper, and safety systems were much more crude; should we go back to LOS navigation? I am not making any unsubstantiated claim, it’s a fact that over the decades risk analyses have determined that such measures were necessary. You’re the ne claiming it was just tree-hugging hysteria.