Nuclear is the lesser evil. But I think we should be clear that nuclear can Have a catastrophic effect on the environment if manged incorrectly. Like render entire swaths of earth inhabitable. Like beyond high temperature. Places that mean immediate silent death
But properly managed nuclear is like the greatest thing to ever happen to humanity.
But I will say in light of recent… Events, my faith that humanity could properly manage our waste if nuclear were to become more prolific has wained dramatically.
Immediate silent death is grossly over exaggerating. Even in Chernobyl which was absolute worst case scenario that can’t happen with modern designs, the “immediate death” area was directly around the plant.
The concern is cancer in 30 years, not immediate death. Not that trying to downplay cancer, but it really only makes it uninhabitable for humans who live much longer than 30 years. A lot of wildlife basically doesn’t notice since their lives are shorter. It doesn’t mean we should be cavalier about irradiating the environment, but there is no need to go around calling it immediate death.
Keep in mind significant effort was put into ensure Chernobyl didn’t experience further thermal detonation. It could get a lot worse. Especially with bigger reactors.
All being said there are safer reactor types but do you really trust the same people who put doge in charge with getting that implemented correctly so it doesn’t explode? Especially with the increased interest in small scale reactors that would be much closer to people.
Nuclear is the lesser evil. But I think we should be clear that nuclear can Have a catastrophic effect on the environment if manged incorrectly. Like render entire swaths of earth inhabitable. Like beyond high temperature. Places that mean immediate silent death
But properly managed nuclear is like the greatest thing to ever happen to humanity.
But I will say in light of recent… Events, my faith that humanity could properly manage our waste if nuclear were to become more prolific has wained dramatically.
I mean, we COULD manage it properly, but we also NEED to slowly chip away at that safety budget each quarter to please shareholders.
I mean, last quarter you did it on 5% less than the previous quarter, surely you can do it on 5% less again?
Immediate silent death is grossly over exaggerating. Even in Chernobyl which was absolute worst case scenario that can’t happen with modern designs, the “immediate death” area was directly around the plant.
The concern is cancer in 30 years, not immediate death. Not that trying to downplay cancer, but it really only makes it uninhabitable for humans who live much longer than 30 years. A lot of wildlife basically doesn’t notice since their lives are shorter. It doesn’t mean we should be cavalier about irradiating the environment, but there is no need to go around calling it immediate death.
Keep in mind significant effort was put into ensure Chernobyl didn’t experience further thermal detonation. It could get a lot worse. Especially with bigger reactors.
All being said there are safer reactor types but do you really trust the same people who put doge in charge with getting that implemented correctly so it doesn’t explode? Especially with the increased interest in small scale reactors that would be much closer to people.