/sci/ - Science & Math

B-BUT NUCLEAR IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Again, When you compare Nuclear Energy to Fossil fuels, Fossil fuels are vastly more damaging to the environment compared to Nuclear, especially with Co2 emissions, Chernobyl, the site of the supposedly most devastating Nuclear accident of all time has after 30 years become a nature reserve, the same place that’s supposed to be uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years.

“A team of US and Ukrainian ecologists set up traps to explore how small mammals were responding. They caught a range of voles, mice and shrews – and found that the abundance of animals and the diversity of species was more or less identical both inside and outside the exclusion zone.”
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve
And more so, let’s compare this to renewables such as Wind, which every year kills untold amounts of endangered birds, and Solar which forced the relocation of a Desert Tortoise species. Guess Renewables aren’t the environmental saint they are made out to be after all?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/wind-turbines-killing-endangered-birds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/15/the-greens-and-solar-industry-agree-on-climate-but-they-cant-agree-on-the-california-desert/

>>9664051
Thank you, I like your post.

>socialism is the brakes.

Here we disagree.
It permits weakness and weakness permits rot, that said, the stagnation and monopoly arguments are legitimate and certain things like healthcare benefit greatly from a collectivized system, I'm not a fan of ideology that isn't pragmatic, practical and efficient, I don't care for humanism or morality one bit, if I could I would pull all budget from art subsidies, immigration and environmental policy and fund SPARC/ARC, ITER, material sciences and genetic modification research by the billions.

>>9664051
>the damage that we've wrought upon our planet

We are nothing, our supposed impact pales in comparison to natures own doings, at the drop of a hat our existence could be reduced to nothing more than a dying echo, we are not in control we are lucky to have endured stability for as long as we have but we are overdue for a multitude of disasters that we are not at all equipped to survive, if we focus on preservation now and something of this caliber occurs billions of people will die and we will be setback enormously, as such we must reach milestones such as fusion energy sooner rather than later. The preservationists are quick to believe that we are in control, that we have the power to save and control everything we want but that we do not have the will, in fact we are on borrowed time and we have no time for ethical constraints, in the long run it is far more ethical to be unethical and less considerate now if it enables faster technological progress.