> On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:10 AM, Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> wrote: > >> On 12/13/2016 02:34 AM, grarpamp wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM, #$%& <#$%&#$%&@gmail.com> wrote: >>> nuke is worse than oil and has the same 'geopolitical >>> dependencies'. >> I know it has sourcing and mining issues but we know >> safe open crowd reviewed plant designs and open >> inspections are possible for those bold enough to >> set aside secret corp profit bullshit, and obviously there >> are zero emissions, except for waste. And maybe >> similar source reserve timescales as hydrocarbon fuels. > > The issues I have with nuclear energy, are that when things go wrong... > they go *really* wrong. Sure, they may not fail as often as they used > to, but that doesn't mean shit isn't going to *really* go sideways when > it does. > > Seriously, the Fukushima disaster makes the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater > Horizon incidents look like a few guys pissed in the ocean. Nom nom nom > radioactive fish... >
Newer fission reactor designs that are built in more suitable geographic locations are far less dangerous. I find it amusing how the left accuses the right of denying science (climate change) while at the same time vehemently doing the same thing on a number of issues (gmos, nuclear power, vaccines..). Of course the future, one hopes, is in fusion. Not the LENR hoax bullshit, but the stuff they are researching at ITER in Europe. > -- > Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> > http://www.rantroulette.com > http://www.skqrecordquest.com
