4 ms·
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 inciden
by 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 agoSo 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 agoNobody 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 agoDams 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.