4 ms·
The winning alternative was to not stop using nuclear power until some point in the future, where 2010 was thrown about but not set in stone. They're not all th
by kryptiskt 11y ago
The winning alternative was to not stop using nuclear power until some point in the future, where 2010 was thrown about but not set in stone. They're not all that far from that schedule seeing that a couple of reactors have been decommissioned.
Though I wonder what moral rights the people of 1980 really have to decide to keep nuclear power for themselves while saddling the people of 2010 with the trouble of shutting it down and finding alternatives, when those under 48 y.o in 2010 didn't have a vote in the referendum.
- vacri 11y agoDo parents not have a moral right to look after their children?
- nmcfarl 11y agoCushy set
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Trombone12 11y agoThe early 2000s is when the end of the expected lifetimes of the reactors falls anyway. Really, the ones with the questionable moral are the builders of the reactors, since reactors will always have to be decommissioned due to material fatigue.
- learnstats2 11y ago>when those under 48 y.o in 2010 didn't have a vote in the referendum. Nuclear reactors can't be powered on and off year-by-year, and this was known in 1980 and was factored into the advisory referendum. As such, this referendum is one of the few elections where the voters cannot be accused of voting selfishly in their own self-interest. We should listen to that type of result and learn from it.