|
|
|
|
|
by xlpz
5575 days ago
|
|
I quote from The Article(tm): "What is the worst-case scenario for Fukushima Daiichi?
It's difficult to be definitive, because information is limited and often confused, and the outcome will depend on the decisions the plant's operators take." They don't discard anything, and just because something is less serious than Chernobyl it does not make it "minor". Also, so-called experts have been consistently wrong in estimating things in the past days. Seriously guys, just wait and see for a few days before shouting from the rooftops how amazingly reinforced nuclear power has come out of this. You are not helping anyone. It honestly just seems that you already know that nuclear energy is a must-have, so you are reasoning backwards from there. If the accident was very serious it would call into question your ideas, so it must be minor, even if it's not over yet and some serious shit still could happen in the future. I just can't support this way of reasoning. |
|
But that's creating a seriously false dichotomy: Nobody is saying that this situation is "minor", and I most definitely don't think it is, and did not post this to downplay the situation.
I posted it because Chernobyl comparisons are like the Godwins Law of nuclear power. Things can be very bad without being comparable to Chernobyl.