Will Oliver Stone Live in Chernobyl for a Year?
Hell no!
Unless he does, his movie is pure BS. (Pardon my French.)
Luddite much?
When smog was choking California and exhaust from leaded gasoline was poisoning our children, did we ban cars? No, we improved the technology so that emissions were cleaner and gasoline was unleaded.
The same can be done with nuclear power. There's no reason that modern nuclear can't be safe and clean. Stop citing conditions from 40 years ago, built on technology from before that.
Present war in which Russians were bombing near the Ukrainian nuclear site proves they are not safe.
Actually, we are banning fossil fuel cars. Many countries have legislation to replace them with electric cars.
And where will the electricity to charge the electric cars come from? How will we power the mining equipment to mine the rare earth minerals to build them?
shareDeflection?
My point is you're wrong. Fossil fuel cars are being banned and nukes are dangerous.
Thank you for proving my point. We overcome with advancements in technology and forward thinking. From leaded gasoline to unleaded to ULEV to ZEV. It makes more sense to make safer, more efficient technologies to solve the world's energy problems, such as nuclear power.
shareForward thinking is green energy. Nuclear is the past and DOA since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
shareNuclear is green energy and therefore forward thinking. It's far more green than solar or wind for a lot of reasons.
Again citing some decades-old incidents as an argument against 2023 solutions is not any kind of reasonable argument.
Nuclear radiation lasts longer than decades.
Nothing green about nuclear since its radiation kills life. Prove me wrong and live in Chernobyl for a year.
Present war in which Russians were bombing near the Ukrainian nuclear site proves they are not safe.
How so? Nuclear fuel is not explosive. And reactors are buried deep underground to avoid damage in times of war. It would take effort to target them & cause a meltdown. It would be much easier to just use their warheads. They probably (hopefully) won't do either because they don't want the political backlash from fence-sitters like India/China. Not to mention the nuclear fallout would be right on their border.
If Russia's intent was to just sow chaos, they could cause much more damage by attacking hydroelectric dams in Ukraine. Kiev sits right on a river & could really be messed up.
Actually, we are banning fossil fuel cars. Many countries have legislation to replace them with electric cars.
They're banning them because of carbon emissions. Not pollution. share
Are you expecting the person who uses whether someone wants to live near Chernobyl as an argument?
Nuclear plants cannot explode. They have foot and a half thick stainless steel containment vessels around them encased in like 12 feet of concrete.
The fact is that no one is thinking or reporting factually or logically on any of this. Stone's movie will bring a lot of facts and truths to light.
One truth is that the world's supply and production of copper is not enough to build the number of electric cars that will be needed to get rid of oil as a vehicle fluid. Not to mention the rare elements needed to make batteries, and the energy necessary to recycle them.
Nuclear is pretty much the ONLY option.
> Present war in which Russians were bombing near the Ukrainian nuclear site proves they are not safe.
That proves war is not safe, so the US better stop using it as the only method of diplomacy.
Even wars are for gain, and no one wants to destroy the only method of energy production and make the area uninhabitable. There was no danger from the nuclear plants, and Russia never fired on a nuclear plant, that was the Ukrainians, and even if they did, even if they tried to blow up the plant, there is very little danger - it is the media playing on people's fears.
Even the old plants are safe and clean and have been operating and very low expense for decades.
Besides, the real fact is, there is no choice, we will have to go to nuclear to replace the power sources we currently have an build for growth of the West and the underdeveloped world/
Yes. It's easy to see for anyone rational. There's so much not green about "green" solar, wind, and EV. They're not scalable nor sustainable.
shareSolar is great, but I don't see it ever being the massive industrial share of human power generation. And, if it was I think we'd be in trouble. Maybe if and when we have space stations where the solar flux ismany times greater than on Earth and there is infinite space.
But what gets me about the solar thing is that no one seems to have given any thought to what could create a massive solar failure - like a volcano or asteroid that kicks massive amounts of dusk in to the air, or nuclear war, or just weather change and duststorms happening. Or, what happens is the Earth just gets a lot cloudier?
Luddite has nothing to do with it.
Would this moron or anyone want to live in a toxic petroleum dump, or a coal tailings dump to prove those are good sources of energy ... the whole idea is as idiotic as Keelai always is.
He wrote that as a reply in another thread, and surprisingly thought it was a good enough point to repeat it in his own thread. Dumbest things I've read in a long time.