@MataVatnik to Science [email protected]English • 3 months agoAnon questions our energy sectorslrpnk.netimagemessage-square386arrow-up11.17Karrow-down1187
arrow-up1986arrow-down1imageAnon questions our energy sectorslrpnk.net@MataVatnik to Science [email protected]English • 3 months agomessage-square386
minus-square@RememberTheApollo_linkEnglish24•3 months agoTBF a nuclear incident is not like burning just one house down. It’s burning down the whole city and making it unusable for a decade or ten.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish13•3 months agoWhile 100% true for nuclear, the current state of burning fossil fuels is much MUCH worse.
minus-square@RememberTheApollo_linkEnglish4•3 months agoYes. Over the long term it will render the planet uninhabitable, or at least close enough to it.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish3•3 months agoSome experts would argue it’s already starting to be uninhabitable.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish7•3 months agoI think a town burning down would be fatal for most the inhabitants 3000 BC
minus-square@RememberTheApollo_linkEnglish1•3 months agoYes, maybe… but the point being they could, and often did, rebuild right where they’d been before. Radiation prevents that.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish5•3 months agoWhy not build it in a remote location then? Dams can also produce a lot of hydroelectric power, and a catastrophic failure could also destroy an entire town or more. We just don’t build dams upstream of a large town.
minus-squareFonzie!linkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoThe Chernobyl reactor’s explosion had impacts all the way in West Europe. I don’t think you can be remote enough with this.
TBF a nuclear incident is not like burning just one house down. It’s burning down the whole city and making it unusable for a decade or ten.
While 100% true for nuclear, the current state of burning fossil fuels is much MUCH worse.
Yes. Over the long term it will render the planet uninhabitable, or at least close enough to it.
Some experts would argue it’s already starting to be uninhabitable.
I think a town burning down would be fatal for most the inhabitants 3000 BC
Yes, maybe… but the point being they could, and often did, rebuild right where they’d been before. Radiation prevents that.
Why not build it in a remote location then?
Dams can also produce a lot of hydroelectric power, and a catastrophic failure could also destroy an entire town or more. We just don’t build dams upstream of a large town.
The Chernobyl reactor’s explosion had impacts all the way in West Europe.
I don’t think you can be remote enough with this.