sv1sjp@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoYoung climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stancewww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square42fedilinkarrow-up18
arrow-up18external-linkYoung climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stancewww.theguardian.comsv1sjp@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square42fedilink
minus-squareThe_v@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 year agoThe worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants. Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet. It’s really not that complicated.
minus-squareabraxas@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoExcept that nuclear isn’t the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.
minus-squarepedroapero@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 year agoExcept that powering the world with nuclear would require thousands of reactors and so much more disasters. This doesn’t even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.
minus-squareuis@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year ago This doesn’t even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials. You mean under ground from where it was dug out?
minus-squarepedroapero@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 year agoThe plant itself, water inevitably getting in contact with wastes and leaking also.
minus-squareuis@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoYou mean water under ground? It was in contact million years before any of us was born.
minus-squarepedroapero@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 year agoMillion years were sufficient for the radioactivity to decay before life started to evolve on earth.
minus-squareintensely_human@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoThen how does it fuel nuclear reactors?
minus-squareumad_cause_ibad@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 year agoBoth sound terrible. I don’t really want to pick the lessor of two evils when it comes to the energy.
The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.
Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.
It’s really not that complicated.
Except that nuclear isn’t the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.
Except that powering the world with nuclear would require thousands of reactors and so much more disasters. This doesn’t even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.
You mean under ground from where it was dug out?
The plant itself, water inevitably getting in contact with wastes and leaking also.
You mean water under ground? It was in contact million years before any of us was born.
Million years were sufficient for the radioactivity to decay before life started to evolve on earth.
Then how does it fuel nuclear reactors?
Both sound terrible.
I don’t really want to pick the lessor of two evils when it comes to the energy.