3 ms·
I said from the start that the argument you presented was fallacious, and all you did was present it, now, because you have no other argument, you're workin
by awesome_dude 3mo ago
I said from the start that the argument you presented was fallacious, and all you did was present it, now, because you have no other argument, you're working on aggressive attacks.
You're on your own now. Bye.
- fc417fc802 3mo agoDo please explain how it's fallacious? I've made the claims that one, there is a sufficiently low volume of waste produced per unit of generation that geologic disposal is affordable and scalable and that two, said geological disposal is in fact safe. Where's the fallacy? It appears to me that you are attached to a position that you aren't capable of defending.
- roenxi 3mo agoAlso worth seeing that less has to be fundamentally safe at some point, otherwise background radiation would be a threat. If examined on its own without considering the surrounding inert volume, one decaying particle is presumably quite radioactive. So since less->magically safer is true some point, the argument can't be made fallacious by asserting it is true. The worst the argument can be is unpersuasive (although it is persuasive - from a practical perspective there is a tiny volume of toxic waste, it isn't a reason to block progress).
- awesome_dude 3mo agoHe literally mentioned tonnes of waste being generated. But don't let that get in the way of a good pile on.
- bvcp 3mo agoalso its not really waste, its waste by law only, in reality its unrefined fuel