That's a poor argument for creating another, even worse, mess on top of the coal one.
I agree! So what's worse - dumping tons more nuclear waste into the atmosphere and on the ground, or dealing with a far lesser quantity of waste in a manner such that none is released into the air or water?
Personally I'd rather have less nuclear waste in the air I breathe. How about yourself?
Because nobody is claiming the coal mess is going away any time soon.
Right. We should be pushing alternatives instead of just increasing the coal mess as quickly as possible.
Without even noting the scarcity of coal Chernobyls
Google Centralia, PA. Our very own Chernobyl from the coal power industry.
If you are planning to replace coal, a good idea no one appears to be entertaining in real life, why not with something cheaper and safer than nukes?
That would be great. But right now one doesn't exist.
Consider the following conversation between a doctor and a patient:
Doctor: Your LDL levels are through the roof, and you are showing early signs of coronary artery obstruction. You have got to start exercising and dieting or you are headed for a heart attack.
Patient: That's pretty inconvenient. What are my other options?
Doctor: Well, statins can reduce your HDL's, and combined with diet . . .
Patient: Whoah! Statins sound like they could be dangerous. I think I'll wait until a cheaper, safer alternative comes along.
Would such a decision be a wise one?
Last edited: