sv1sjp@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoYoung climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stancewww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square499fedilinkarrow-up1996arrow-down156
arrow-up1940arrow-down1external-linkYoung climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stancewww.theguardian.comsv1sjp@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square499fedilink
minus-squareJTskulk@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up27arrow-down1·1 year agoUninhabitable by humans. Chernobyl created a nature preserve in an instant. The coal pollution you’ve inhaled has affected you more than all 3 of these nuclear disasters.
minus-squarekool_newt@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down7·1 year agoChernobyl is an acceptable outcome for you? Scary af
minus-squareSpecal@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up15·1 year agoChernobyl was a worst case scenario. It has affected millions of people and will have an unknown death toll due to the inability to measure it. It’s still less harmful than any non renewal able energy source. Nuclear is a safe, intermediate bandaid while we find a long term solution.
minus-squareErtebolle@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up10·edit-21 year ago3800 people a year die from coal plant pollution in the US alone; there are, in fact, much worse things than Chernobyl
minus-squarekool_newt@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoGreat reasons to not use coal either. there are, in fact, much worse things than Chernobyl So then anything not as bad is A-OK?
minus-squareErtebolle@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 year agoMore nuclear = less coal, that’s the thrust of like half of the comments here dude
Uninhabitable by humans. Chernobyl created a nature preserve in an instant. The coal pollution you’ve inhaled has affected you more than all 3 of these nuclear disasters.
Chernobyl is an acceptable outcome for you? Scary af
Chernobyl was a worst case scenario. It has affected millions of people and will have an unknown death toll due to the inability to measure it.
It’s still less harmful than any non renewal able energy source.
Nuclear is a safe, intermediate bandaid while we find a long term solution.
3800 people a year die from coal plant pollution in the US alone; there are, in fact, much worse things than Chernobyl
Great reasons to not use coal either.
So then anything not as bad is A-OK?
More nuclear = less coal, that’s the thrust of like half of the comments here dude