mojofrododojo
yup.
but also:
On December 6, 1938, the Japanese government made a decision of prohibiting the expulsion of the Jews in Japan, Manchukuo, and the rest of Japanese-occupied China. This was described as "amoral", based primarily on the consideration of avoiding antagonizing the United States. Even after Japan and United States became involved in a war against each other, the Japanese government's neutrality towards the Jews continued.
Germany repeatedly tried to get Japan on board with persecuting the Jews and Japan always stepped back and kept a "nah that's your thing we're busy abusing chinese and korean people" policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_and_the_Holocaust
Life is rarely simple. History too.
pretty sure the sockpuppet brigades of "these protests are worse than the pollution" and "protest never changes anything" are are working for the oil industry. In fact:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/10/study-fossil-fuel-industry-lobbying-anti-protest-bills/
so you're more concerned about the status of our stuff than the survival of the species that creates the stuff?
also, what has been destroyed?
nothing. nothing has been destroyed.
there’s literally centuries for us to figure out a way to make those waste useful for us.
yes, I'm sure we'll hop on fixing this enormous issue with all the same urgency we've treated it with so far...
yep, they're awesome, and may sidestep some of the HUGE investments in gigantic infrastructure - one day. What you conveniently leave out is no one is doing this yet at scale; china's got one test reactor going last time I looked.
I personally love the idea, but the nuclear industry here in the US is obsessed with large steam turbine setups in the multiple megawatt scale; even small modular reactors are getting side eyes.
So yeah, it exists, but it's not going to displace the current tech (which is really 60's tech with better electronics).
why bother investing enormous amounts of money into a tech that's already problematic? when there are better solutions at hand?
I'm not anti-nuclear, I just think further investment into it is misguided when there are so many other options that don't create tens of thousands of years of radioisotopes that have to go somewhere.
good on Scandinavia, the rest of the world isn't in such privileged positions. As seen in Fukushima. As seen in the hundreds of cooling ponds all over the US.
This argument would make sense if the aircraft, when they crashed, left radioactive debris with hundreds of years of threat.
Thank fuck we don't let the nuclear industry make aircraft.
Otherwise your premise disregards the long life of the threat involved.
Nuclear waste is a solved problem
maybe solved where you live, and only for as long as your containment facility stays in one piece.
earthquakes, meteors, tidal waves - these things do happen, sure, not often on a lifetime scale, but compared to the long half-lives of this stuff? plenty of time for the worst case scenario.
I think you pretend the problem is simpler than it actually is, when considered the time frames involved. It's not your lifetime we're talking, it's the hundreds of generations where this shit remains hot.
AND I'd add your country is at least trying, in the US we've given up and store it in pools local to the reactors, it's ignorant as fuck
Funny how you have zero shits to give. Privileged life huh?