4 ms·
Nah, instead atmospheric CO2 is quickly headed to 450ppm. 2-3 meltdowns would be far more manageable (especially considering the non-existent death toll outside
by arrosenberg 2y ago
Nah, instead atmospheric CO2 is quickly headed to 450ppm. 2-3 meltdowns would be far more manageable (especially considering the non-existent death toll outside the USSR).
- metabagel 2y ago> (especially considering the non-existent death toll outside the USSR) Why would you only look at the death toll outside the USSR? That doesn't seem like the right way to go about risk analysis and management.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Why would you only look at the death toll outside the USSR? The point is the externalities of nuclear power are localised. Emissions are not.
- arrosenberg 2y agoEven if I consider it, the death toll from nuclear is an insignificant fraction of deaths resulting from airborne (or water or food) pollutants from fossil fuels or steel and silicon production.