• Carighan Maconar
    link
    English
    61 year ago

    It’s sweden, if you pick locations randomly, chances are on your side that it’ll be insanely remote.

    • Carlos Solís
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Good to know! That means plenty of places that could be cordoned off in case of a Fukushima, right?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Tell me you know nothing about nuclear science without telling me

        (Simpsons doesn’t count as a credible source)

        • Carlos Solís
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          I’m surprised to see so many people eagerly dismissing the chance of a nuclear reactor leak, even by accident.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            And what are those chances may I ask?

            Its like comparing a 1970’s shitbox car to a 2022 model and saying all cars are immediately gonna kill us.

            Really don’t think any nuclear reactor leaks are not accidents, hence why we have such amazing tech to stop it

            • @schroedingershat
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              Chances of a leak are roughly 100%

              Most sites are unusable for a few decades due to tritium leaks.

              Chances of an economy-destroying disaster on the other hand are much lower, but you didn’t ask that.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Odds of a leak are what?? Give me some of whatever youre smoking, unless you mean some backass “technically they leak runoff water” bs, cause reactors are currently the safest way to generate power, even beating the insanely small dangers of solar (which due to production requires more overall human risk)

                • @schroedingershat
                  link
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Chances of an economy-destroying disaster on the other hand are much lower, but you didn’t ask that.

                  Also now you’re lying again with that second sentence. For no benefit whatsoever, as well. This is also a 100% consistent pattern with nuke shills.