3 ms·
I’m unfamiliar with the publisher but the content is unquestionably written by someone who has a sub-high-school understanding of nuclear physics and is egregio
by simondotau 4y ago
I’m unfamiliar with the publisher but the content is unquestionably written by someone who has a sub-high-school understanding of nuclear physics and is egregiously misusing numbers out of context for maximum fear.
Seek better sources.
- XorNot 4y ago[flagged]
- simondotau 4y ago[Replying to my own comment] There is a sibling comment to this one which is flagged and "dead". It was inflammatory in tone but something I would vouch for in substance. My advice to its author is to not give censcorious people an excuse to mob away your views. Avoid the hyperbole. Greenpeace, for one reason or another, has been obsessed with nuclear power to the objective net detriment of the environment. Their activism has directly resulted in a strengthening of legacy fossil fuel industries and the increased reliance on fossil fuel consumption. Absent the campaigning by Greenpeace there would certainly be more, newer, safer nuclear energy reactors in Europe today. This would directly result in offsetting need for coal power — especially if Greenpeace had applied as much effort to opposing coal as they did nuclear power.
- HyperSane 4y agoWe could have completely replaced coal power with nuclear if it wasn't for Greenpeace.