oil supply sigint

[juan]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 02:55:50 -0500
grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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,

	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.