#131
|
||||
|
Quote:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pres...al-grossi-says | |||
#132
|
|||||
|
Quote:
https://youtu.be/g2wpk8lPUQQ And another article... https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...anese-disaster Quote:
| ||||
Last edited by Ennewi; 07-27-2021 at 11:12 AM..
|
#133
|
||||
|
Quote:
Cheerfully withdrawn | |||
#134
|
|||
|
Enewi people's tap water is flammable. Have some perspective.
Also you ALREADY. CANT. EAT. FISH. BECAUSE OF POLLUTION. So stop acting like you're afraid of potential radiation in fish. | ||
#135
|
||||
|
Quote:
Taking into consideration the possibility of a second Chernobyl is lacking perspective...how? The point being made wasn't solely about fish. I know, hard to believe since my guild makes every effort to down Koi, Fay, etc. | |||
#136
|
||||
|
Quote:
And if you have something against Chernobyl, then focus your energy at beurocracy because that is what caused that disaster, not the plant. If you took ALL the damage nuke power has caused, and put it up against the best case scenario for all other forms of power the damage to the environment is literally a puddle, next to an ocean. That's the perspective I think we screwed up, ironically it was the same political group that is for fixing the environment, that was against nuclear power. | |||
Last edited by Jibartik; 07-27-2021 at 12:48 PM..
|
#137
|
|||
|
Chemical and biological pollution is far, far worse to humanity and the food chain than radioactive water leaking into the sea.
There were entire studies done on this. Yeah, it's shitty, there's no denying that, but the average person doesn't understand order of magnitudes when it comes to Curies or Becquerels. Suffice to say, the dilution of tritiated water (which is the issue here) really isn't a public health concern. It's hard to make a good argument online about it, so I tend to stay out of them (plus, most people make up their minds and can't be convinced otherwise). People fear what they can't see -- which is ironic, because no one seems to take COVID seriously -- but I digress. But, succinctly, the burning of coal for power has put more radiation into the atmosphere than any nuclear plant, or nuclear weapon, ever has. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCL...62/9362611.pdf http://large.stanford.edu/publicatio...s/hvistendahl/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17777943/ That list continues on and on, just hard to get some of them because they're subscription only material. There's no nuclear power conspiracy. We don't make much money off of it. Coal, gas, oil -- now that's the money you want to trace. These people don't care about anything, just the accumulation of wealth. Most folks in the nuclear industry understand that what they do is far better for the environment | ||
#138
|
|||||
|
Quote:
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/26/w...chernobyl.html Yes, the choice was made in order to save money. https://www.mydenveraccidentlawfirm....-of-the-pinto/ But again, according to the quote made by Andreev, no studies were conducted on Chernobyl by the industry. Quote:
Chernobyl is still a reality, which I am comparing to other real events like the one in Fukushima. The only fantasy elements mentioned? Water dragonses. A missed opportunity on your part to speculate on custom content related to Bertoxxulous. Also, the article about Onondaga Lake detailed the effect of mercury levels dating back to the 1940s, providing yet more perspective on the topic. | ||||
#139
|
|||
|
reminder doesn't even matter though we're in the thread title.
and even if another chernybol is a reality it still pails in comparison to the best case scenario of the other options. | ||
Last edited by Jibartik; 07-27-2021 at 01:25 PM..
|
#140
|
||||
|
Quote:
https://youtu.be/ZwY2E0hjGuU | |||
|
|