• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    132 years ago

    The clean-up operation is expected to take decades, with the most dangerous part — removing radioactive fuel and rubble from three stricken reactors — yet to begin.

    Nothing to see here, people. We have everything under control. Like, we totally know what we’re doing.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        72 years ago

        Tell that to the tens of thousands of people that were displaced. And the alternative to nukes is obviously not fossil fuels but renewable energy.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          222 years ago

          The Three Gorges dam displaced an approximate 1.3 million people, is of questionable structural integrity because of rushed construction, has had a huge impact on its immediate environment and in the event of a breach endangers 400 million people. While that monstrosity is an outlier, in most instances the construction of a dam will displace a lot of people and carries a sizable risk of breach if the construction isn’t carried out properly. Should or shouldn’t hydroelectric be considered environmentally friendly?

          • Deceptichum
            link
            fedilink
            72 years ago

            Hydro is the 70s idea of green.

            See how people usually only talk about wind/solar rather than suggest building more dams?

            If anything places are starting to dismantle dams to restore ecosystems.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              Wind and solar have relatively short material lifespans that are expensive or impossible to recycle. It’s all a double edged sword. There is no single solution that will work everywhere on this planet.

            • leaskovski
              link
              fedilink
              32 years ago

              I know what nuclear power is, I’m just confused as to why someone would use the word nukes, which is clearly associated with the ammunitions.

              Nuclear power has its place in the energy generation system alongside natural energy sources.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                42 years ago

                Sorry if I was vague, I meant the person you were replying to doesn’t know what nuclear power is, which is why they use a fear mongering term like “nukes” to describe nuclear power.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Your house is on fire, but the good news is I just saved a lot of money on my car insurance.

        The lesser of 2 evils is not a compelling argument for energy consumption when the Earth is dying.

    • R0cket_M00se
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 years ago

      Yeah, you’re right. It’s not that they’re trying to be careful and prevent more damage, it’s going to take that long because they’re stupid. /s

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        Nobody knows how long they’re going to take because they still don’t have a fucking clue about how they’re going to do it. I’m not blaming the people working on this stuff, my point is that this technology is still uncontrollable despite what all the apologists keep trying to tell us.