Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by danjac 1068 days ago
All true, but right now those risks pale in comparison to the ongoing disasters caused by fossil fuels.
3 comments

Precisely the point. It's a good test of commitment when someone is asked to give up something (in this case a very small increase of the probability of causing a problem) in return for climate improvements.
Nuclear is only an intermediate solution but many treat like the final one.

It isn't helpful averting one problem to create another one.

If you are wandering the desert, dying of thirst, and you find a bottle of Coke, you should probably drink it and not worry too much about getting diabetes.
What about a bottle with Vibrio cholerae?
Stupid analogy, but yes you'd actually live a bit longer if you drank it.
Sure. But Fossil Fuel vs Nuclear is a false dilemma