3 ms·
And there are plenty of real disasters that were several times deadlier than Chernobyl, yet I doubt most readers have heard of them since they don't involve the
by Manuel_D 4y ago
And there are plenty of real disasters that were several times deadlier than Chernobyl, yet I doubt most readers have heard of them since they don't involve the term "nuclear"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
Nuclear is one of the safest form of electricity generation, even though plants built before 1980 account for most electricity production. Safety is not an issue with nuclear, when doing a good-faith comparison with other forms of energy production and the continued damage of climate change.
- Gwypaas 4y agoStop engaging in whataboutism and answer the point instead.
- Manuel_D 4y agoI am indeed engaging with the point: Nuclear power's safety record is very good, and better than most other energy sources. Providing examples of other industrial disasters that don't have nearly the same recognition of nuclear accidents that harmed much fewer people serves to demonstrate just how strong of a double standard people apply to nuclear technology.