Nuclear energy isn’t a safe bet in a warming world – here’s why

[Marlin]

It's news don't shoot the messenger.

Nuclear energy isn't a safe bet in a warming world – here's why

https://theconversation.com/nuclear-energy-isnt-a-safe-bet-in-a-warming-world-heres-why-163371

[Mounder]

Interesting article.  Commenters largely slammed it for "agenda written."  None of the arguments support no nuclear power in the NE United States, which is the case.  They have plenty of water, population power need, geologically stable, high priced electric and limited hurricane/mass flooding concerns.  And I never mentioned carbon.

[hamsamich]

I read some of the comments by the author...seems like a pretentious douchbag.  These articles usually don't talk about the elephant in the room...which is the supposed scientific consensus that global warming is coming for us sooner than later and will kill millions if it isn't stopped; then compare it to the nebulous and hard to prove risks of nuclear power/radioactivity which have no scientific consensus.  Who gives a shit if a couple nuclear plants have a meltdown (how many have died directly from western nuclear plant failures?)  If global warming is such a monster this should pale in comparison to the risk of nuclear plants operating in a warmer world.  "They" are always trying to find ways to frame nuclear as the baddie...the real inconvenient truth is that nuclear power has been framed all along and it's now so much more apparent with every douchy article I read like this one when they dance around the truth.  Who framed nuclear power?  The left's version of science.  Stop bullshitting me.