4 ms·

Yet we've had Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Sellafield and many others (military ones too). Unforeseen accidents happen. Wars too, which tend to dest

Yet we've had Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Sellafield and many others (military ones too). Unforeseen accidents happen. Wars too, which tend to destroy safety equipment. Artillery was fired around Zaporizhzhia when the reactors were still online, Ukraine is currently invading Russia near Kursk where two of the mad-graphite RBMK reactors are still operational today. I hope they try to avoid those when blowing stuff up. Because they don't have containment vessels. And then see how difficult it is to clean up an accident like Fukushima where the containment mostly held. It feels like playing with fire.

exe34 2y ago
> It feels like playing with fire Much safer to burn the rest of the planet instead.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  That's going to happen anyway. We're already locked in. No amount of nuclear we can build can reverse that in time. We're just adding more risks to the mix. And externalising more issues to the future which is how we got into this crisis to begin with.
  - exe34 2y ago
    I love it, we went from "it's impossible" to "it's not happening", to "it's happening but it's too early to waste money on it", to "it's happening but it's too late". > externalising more issues to the future which is how we got into this crisis to begin with. is this the "nuclear would take 20 years" we've been hearing for the last 60? [0] https://youtu.be/nSXIetP5iak?si=us7OuYwGLSrU-uod https://youtu.be/nSXIetP5iak?si=us7OuYwGLSrU-uod
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> we've had Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Sellafield You’re comparing rubber ducks and battleships
BurningFrog 2y ago
Chernobyl was an actual disaster. The others created big headlines, but the real human casualties were smaller than a bad traffic accident. The core argument here is "you never know!". And that argument is always true. But people only apply it to things they're afraid of.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  It's not just about deaths. Hundreds of billions in cleanup is a disaster too. Environmental releases too.

exe34 2y ago

> It feels like playing with fire Much safer to burn the rest of the planet instead.

wkat4242 2y ago
That's going to happen anyway. We're already locked in. No amount of nuclear we can build can reverse that in time. We're just adding more risks to the mix. And externalising more issues to the future which is how we got into this crisis to begin with.
- exe34 2y ago
  I love it, we went from "it's impossible" to "it's not happening", to "it's happening but it's too early to waste money on it", to "it's happening but it's too late". > externalising more issues to the future which is how we got into this crisis to begin with. is this the "nuclear would take 20 years" we've been hearing for the last 60? [0] https://youtu.be/nSXIetP5iak?si=us7OuYwGLSrU-uod https://youtu.be/nSXIetP5iak?si=us7OuYwGLSrU-uod

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> we've had Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Sellafield You’re comparing rubber ducks and battleships

BurningFrog 2y ago

Chernobyl was an actual disaster. The others created big headlines, but the real human casualties were smaller than a bad traffic accident. The core argument here is "you never know!". And that argument is always true. But people only apply it to things they're afraid of.

wkat4242 2y ago
It's not just about deaths. Hundreds of billions in cleanup is a disaster too. Environmental releases too.