• gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    And my primary criticism is on the catastrophic failure problem

    That’s the weaker argument in your original post. Modern designs are nowhere near as bad as older ones designs (aka soviet, we all know you mean Chernobyl) and even the older non soviet ones aren’t bad at all

    Fukushima is nowhere near Chernobyl levels of damage (didn’t destroy things for miles for centuries), and no other major plant failures that I can think of would match “catastrophic failure”

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      That’s the weaker argument in your original post.

      Well I mentioned waste first as I did that as a tongue-in-cheek response, but then I immediately mentioned in the very same comment the catastrophic issue, and my recent comment is just me elaborating on the fact that I gave one more weight than the other. It doesn’t discredit what I’m saying.

      Fukushima is nowhere near Chernobyl levels of damage (didn’t destroy things for miles for centuries), and no other major plant failures that I can think of would match “catastrophic failure”

      Fukushima exclusion zone is not large enough for you to consider that a catastrophic wide area failure? Really?

      Modern designs are nowhere near as bad as older ones designs

      I’m already commented on this, but just to quickly repeat myself, there’s a difference between being on the design board and being in existence in production.