3 ms·

How is this supposed to be reassuring that you can return after 11 years? Or even after 1 year? Are you joking? Can you imagine telling the whole of Luxembourg

How is this supposed to be reassuring that you can return after 11 years? Or even after 1 year? Are you joking? Can you imagine telling the whole of Luxembourg that they have to just stop existing for 11 years? Or just Antwerp? In what mad world is this supposed to be uplifting news or an argument pro nuclear? Especially with far safer, cleaner and cheaper alternatives already there and being rolled out in months instead of years....madness.

Manuel_D 3y ago
Compared to the idea that a nuclear accident renders land permanently uninhabitable - which is what the public seems to think is the result of a nuclear incident - 11 years is indeed a pretty short time frame.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  So this is it now? Some virtual public you made up is supposed to be your scapegoat to cover up the fact that nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year? This must be a joke...and just like nuclear: I'm out here.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Nobody wants thousands of people to be killed in a dam failure either. Yet nobody is seriously considering decommissioning all of our dams. In aggregate, nuclear power is one of the safest (and in many studies, the safest) form of power generation out there.
    - Krasnol 3y ago
      Dams are being removed for even less dramatic reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_removal For environmental reasons, for example. Meanwhile, France is heating up rivers, so fish have to die for their failure to diversify and move on to future tech. Your derailments are weak. Your argument that 11 years are "ok" remains, and no dam will ever make this madness better.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    > nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year? Nobody even remotely sane wants to die in a car crash either. Yet we drive cars. Nobody even remotely sane wants to get poisoned by arsenic. Yet we make semiconductors, including solar panels. Nobody even remotely sane wants superfund sites that have long term cleanup requirements. Yet we have them. etc.
mpweiher 3y ago
"Superfund sites are polluted locations in the United States requiring a long-term response to clean up hazardous material contaminations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites Herfa-Neurode stores enough arsenic to kill the entire world population. And tens of thousands tons of extremely poisonous heavy metals. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode Making solar panels produces a lot more arsenic as waste than nuclear does per kWh. You are under the illusion that other industrial processes don't have negative consequences. They do. And on balance nuclear is better.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12102023/inside-clean-energy-reality-check-solar-panel-waste/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12102023/inside-clean-ene...

Manuel_D 3y ago

Compared to the idea that a nuclear accident renders land permanently uninhabitable - which is what the public seems to think is the result of a nuclear incident - 11 years is indeed a pretty short time frame.

Krasnol 3y ago
So this is it now? Some virtual public you made up is supposed to be your scapegoat to cover up the fact that nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year? This must be a joke...and just like nuclear: I'm out here.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Nobody wants thousands of people to be killed in a dam failure either. Yet nobody is seriously considering decommissioning all of our dams. In aggregate, nuclear power is one of the safest (and in many studies, the safest) form of power generation out there.
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    Dams are being removed for even less dramatic reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_removal For environmental reasons, for example. Meanwhile, France is heating up rivers, so fish have to die for their failure to diversify and move on to future tech. Your derailments are weak. Your argument that 11 years are "ok" remains, and no dam will ever make this madness better.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  > nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year? Nobody even remotely sane wants to die in a car crash either. Yet we drive cars. Nobody even remotely sane wants to get poisoned by arsenic. Yet we make semiconductors, including solar panels. Nobody even remotely sane wants superfund sites that have long term cleanup requirements. Yet we have them. etc.

mpweiher 3y ago

"Superfund sites are polluted locations in the United States requiring a long-term response to clean up hazardous material contaminations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites Herfa-Neurode stores enough arsenic to kill the entire world population. And tens of thousands tons of extremely poisonous heavy metals. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode Making solar panels produces a lot more arsenic as waste than nuclear does per kWh. You are under the illusion that other industrial processes don't have negative consequences. They do. And on balance nuclear is better.

Krasnol 3y ago
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12102023/inside-clean-energy-reality-check-solar-panel-waste/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12102023/inside-clean-ene...