• Dojan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I mean it’s not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.

    Nuclear power isn’t 100% safe or risk-free, but it’s hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclear, renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.

    • The_v@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • abraxas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except that nuclear isn’t the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.

      • pedroapero@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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?

      • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Both sound terrible.

        I don’t really want to pick the lessor of two evils when it comes to the energy.