• eclectic_electron
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    And a dam failure isn’t that much better than a nuclear accident, and far more common and less regulated

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just building and completing a damn is worse for the environment and local ecosystems than a category seven catastrophic nuclear accident.

      • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re getting downvoted, but there’s some truth in it. You don’t just build a dam, you flood thousands of square miles and destroy hundreds of microcosms. Species have gone extinct due to dams. Not to mention that you can literally never remove them, because stupid humans build cities at their feet.

        • Rakonat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ive come to find on reddit and lemmu that people don’t actually understand anything about nuclear energy, citing how bad Chernobyl is yet ignoring that not only is there still life in the exclusion zone, new species have emerged and been identified, where as successful dams that didn’t have any failures irrevocably damage and destroyed ecosystem upstream and downstream.

          • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not to mention that in the hundred years of nuclear plants, 30 people have died in TOTAL. Coal mines have killed a hundred thousand in the US alone, and windmills kill a few thousand in the UK alone each year. Nuclear has only killed 30 people. In a hundred years. Fukishima didn’t hurt a single person.