You can't blow up a nuclear reactor. Its physically impossible.https://twitter.com/yestiseye/status/1047255272379404288 …
-
-
Replying to @KaiterEnless
I guess they mean "melted down", I doubt any reactors exist today that could actually explode (i.e. get enough heat and pressure from melting down in a confined area that something does explode)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gtaogle @KaiterEnless
I know. I was emphasising that even though the Hydrogen explosion at Fukushima destroyed the building in which the reactor was housed, the radiation levels around the site are not the nuclear wasteland many people assume it to be.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @gtaogle @KaiterEnless
yeah, I was coming at them sideways. This makes for interesting reading. ~15,000 killed by the earthquake+tsunami. And an extra couple of thousand casualties basically due to fear & ignorance.http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yestiseye @KaiterEnless
personally, I think the danger of nuclear power is generally overstated, even though understandably it's possible for it to be extremely dangerous.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gtaogle @KaiterEnless
Potentially, if done badly, yes, dangerous. It's a spiderman thing.
Then there's climate change to deal with of course, and we have to be rigorous about the data. Hard to see a pathway without it.https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yestiseye @KaiterEnless
I don't believe in climate change in any way, but if you're adding carbon to the atmosphere without removing it, there will eventually be a problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gtaogle @KaiterEnless
And that's fine by me(which might be a surprise… people tend to let their emotions take over in this area). I *know* it's a problem, but will freely admit I'm not sure if the timescale is a few decades or 8/9 decades which to fix it. Happy to pitch the cleaner air argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
carbon isn't a pollutant, so no, I don't see a "cleaner air" argument here. And overall it seems to be something that would be an issue on the timescale of centuries, and reducing emissions isn't a solution.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
