3 ms·
I don't see nuclear power as a great solution. The waste contaminates the environment for thousands of years. And the system is not fault-tolerant, failing in
by prewett 13y ago
I don't see nuclear power as a great solution. The waste contaminates the environment for thousands of years. And the system is not fault-tolerant, failing in ways which render the environment uninhabitable for who knows how long (Chernobyl, Fukushima).
Yeah, it doesn't generate CO2. But at least you can live in a hotter world, can't live with nuclear waste/fallout.
(Also, we don't know that a hotter climate is bad, we've never tried it before)
- eloff 13y agoAre you sure that's an objective assessment of the relative risks, numerically speaking, and not just a common human failing of seeing slow acting, nebulous threats like climate change as being less dangerous than fast and scary threats like nuclear disasters? Nuclear seems the less dangerous bedfellow to me.
- marknutter 13y agoIt doesn't matter if it's a great solution; it's the only solution we have right now.
- CamperBob2 13y agoIt's not valid to judge the "fault tolerance" of nuclear power, or its safety in general, by Chernobyl and Fukushima.
- krasin 13y agoChernobyl is habitable. It's a bit of a land mine, as there're some places with extremely high radiation, but on average it's fine. Wild life feel very good there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#Studies_on_wildlife_in_the_Exclusion_Zone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disast... To make Chernobyl comfortable for people, a cleaning effort is needed, but it's of manageable size.