3 ms·
Perhaps they are people who understand that the failure mode or nuclear, whether it's an accident at the station or regarding the long term byproducts storage (
by coldtea 2y ago
Perhaps they are people who understand that the failure mode or nuclear, whether it's an accident at the station or regarding the long term byproducts storage (and also transfer), is not that good of a bet.
Or the kind of people who don't buy the assurances (from players, scientists working in the industry, and fanboys)
Or the kind of people who are not convinced by statistics about the "low" past impact of accidents and leaks, because they can see how they're downplayed and under-measured by governments trying to save face or promote further nuclear plans, but more importantly, because it just takes one grave accident to kill tons of people, doesn't matter if 200 previous accidents were "tame" enough.
- GaggiX 2y agoDams have killed tens of thousands of people, the latest incident 10 months ago killed 10000-20000 people, yet I always see people bring up how dangerous nuclear is.
- coldtea 2y agoWell, the dam that killed those people was built to prevent flooding, and help with water for irrigation. It's was a neccessary preventive structure to avoid people dying in the first place - that failed after 15 years of lack of government, civil war, and related non-maintenance. Not something they've built despite having other options. At least it wasn't a nuclear factory that could fall into the hands of ISIS (also operating there), and whose materials could be used for bringing havoc all over the globe.