Random Pics, Gifs, and Vids

Which poll option would make the best poll?

  • Total voters
    288
  • This poll will close: .
Commander X said:
View attachment 6551548
Click to expand...

I checked...

1729635092067.png

1729635145020.png

Apparently this is true.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Free Dick Pills, dead76, Pobblebonk and 10 others
paroom paroom said:
View attachment 6551527
Click to expand...
From what I can gather, your only argument is that a catastrophic accident will inevitably happen, therefore nuclear bad (and also some really fucking dumb false equivalency between nuclear energy and the nuclear bomb).

A catastrophic meltdown is conceivable, yes. However, the likelyhood of one happening is really fucking small. Reactors are designed with a lot of redundant failsafes precisely to prevent this from happening. Any accident is likely to kill the reactor, not cause a massive meltdown a la Chernobyl.

Furthermore, here's what a paper had to say about the three major nuclear accidents people bring up.
It is clear that the two major nuclear accidents before Fukushima—Chernobyl in 1986 and Three Mile Island in 1979 (which involved extensive damage to nuclear fuel but a relatively small release of radiation)—were preventable. In each case the cause was inadequate operator training and flaws in reactor design, exacerbated by inadequate understanding of potential risks. Better training and better design (areas in which the global nuclear industry has made significant strides) should prevent a recurrence of similar events.
Click to expand...
One year after the Fukushima accident, however, a picture is emerging that suggests that the calamity was not simply an “act of god” that could not be defended against. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests the accident was the result of failures in regulation and nuclear plant design and that both were lagging behind international best practices and standards. Had these been heeded and applied, the risks to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station would likely have been recognized and effective steps to prevent a major accident could have been taken. In this sense, we believe the Fukushima accident—like its predecessors—was preventable.
Click to expand...
Basically, nuclear power is not a "ticking time bomb." Nuclear catastrophes are rare, and, when the do occur, are entirely preventable. As modern safety standards get better, as reactor design gets better, the risk of such failures only decreases more. To throw out the cleanest and most efficient form of power available just because of the chance of a catastrophic accident, when that chance is already small and ever-shrinking, would be irresponsible at best.

Related tax
494425.png
 
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Dagobert, saintJogger, Pobblebonk and 17 others
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Feels
Reactions: Dafuqisdis?, not william stenchever, Mac Monster and 11 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back