On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 02:55:50 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
The issues I have with nuclear energy, are that when things go wrong... they go *really* wrong. Sure, they may not fail as often as they used to, but that doesn't mean shit isn't going to *really* go sideways when it does.
Whether all at once boom, or toxic pollution over decades,
you mean nuclear? I thought it was pollution for thousands of years...
there's little net difference globally. Boom just makes the news is all, burning carbon doesn't.
Futher as before, you can design out most of the current state of boom with new open designs the world can see, inspect onsite on demand, require changes, etc. When you design a nuke plant like you design an IoT device, of course there will be a pile of flaws.
Seriously, the Fukushima disaster makes the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon incidents look like a few guys pissed in the ocean. Nom nom nom radioactive fish...
Agriculture runoff and dumping chemically poisoned acid rain fish. No net diff.
Come on.
Doesn't matter population depletes and kills oceans soon anyways.