oil supply sigint

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Thu Dec 15 23:55:50 PST 2016


On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at 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,
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.

Doesn't matter population depletes and kills oceans soon anyways.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list