• warm@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Nuclear facilities are very very tight on security. Domestic terrorism is a terrible reason to not build them.

    And if you are a part of a war? With or without the Nuclear plant you are going to have massive problems.

    Weird excuses to not build them if you ask me.

    • Binzy_Boi@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Do I want the results of the war being that my hometown needs to be rebuilt from the ground up?

      Or do I want to have that be the case, except we gotta wait 5000 years for the radiation to be at a level where we can do that safely?

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        A nuclear plant is not a nuclear bomb. And 5000 years is outta your ass.

        And, the most important thing - military targets are usually protected worse than nuclear stations and big industrial plants. A nuclear station doesn’t move anywhere, it just sits on one place armored so well that it’ll likely survive the town being nuked (pun intended).

        There are pollution dangers and complex logistics of rare and expensive materials. And the stations themselves are very expensive. But the danger of a nuclear station giving out a nuclear explosion is nonexistent.

      • warm@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        You have a higher chance of being struck by a falling wind turbine blade than you do of being victim of a failure due to a bombed nuclear power plant.

        You gave an example of the Zaporizhzhia plant being bombed in Ukraine, wheres the explosion or nuclear fallout? And thats a plant from the 80s.