I personally find highly hypothetical situations impossible to guarantee but I'm glad you have such a high degree of self certainty for a plausible scenario you have decided to give certain results to.
You should really consider educating yourself on the Chernobyl reactor melt down (read a book or two) to understand the level of calamity inflicted by the communist system. Stop trying to make it sound like that could happen anywhere because the pressures of capitalism could cause the same results. Its pretty eye opening how insane the chernobyl situation was.
I am actually very familiar with the history of Chernobyl and the meltdown. What I’m saying is human greed and short sightedness do not suddenly go away because a nation decides on a different political/economic system. The implication that it only happened because it was the Soviet Union is what I’m taking issue with because it absolutely could happen in the US without proper guardrails. All it takes is one bad company cutting the wrong corner or firing the one person who spoke out. It’s very easy to see no society is immune to this.
I am not defending the Soviet Union or any of the decisions made during Chernobyl. So you should redirect your indignation/condescension.
The differences between soviet state and Us market based capitalism are completely different. Chernobyl didn't fail because of a simple case of human greed and short sightedness. You really haven't read the details of how Chernobyl came about - its truly wild.
While I don't disagree that there is always a risk (albeit very small) that the bean counters come in while the regulators are sleeping and risk the actual product (see: Boeing) - to try and put in a fear that the Chernobyl situation is just as possible you are reaching there.
Your underlying argument is that we shouldn't use high tech energy and enjoy its benefits because there's a chance somewhere that someone might abuse it but also, that might not happen. Its a blanket safety argument - don't do anything because theres risk.
> Chernobyl didn't fail because of a simple case of human greed and short sightedness.
You are overly reducing what I said and missing the crux of my point.
> You really haven't read the details of how Chernobyl came about - its truly wild.
I told you I have. Nothing I’ve said above discounts that and you know nothing about me. I’m not going to rattle off what I’ve read. You are being incredibly disrespectful.
> Your underlying argument is that we shouldn't use high tech energy and enjoy its benefits because there's a chance somewhere that someone might abuse it
Never said anything remotely like that at any point. And I never would, because I am not against nuclear energy. It is vastly superior to fossil fuels from a humane standpoint and for the environment.
Have a good rest of your week man. This isn’t productive. Go grind your axe elsewhere.
>What I’m saying is human greed and short sightedness do not suddenly go away because a nation decides on a different political/economic system. The implication that it only happened because it was the Soviet Union is what I’m taking issue with because it absolutely could happen in the US without proper guardrails. All it takes is one bad company cutting the wrong corner or firing the one person who spoke out. It’s very easy to see no society is immune to this.
Those are your words - they align exactly and I stand by what I said. No axe to grind here but will defend nuclear energy from weak arguments. Your line of reasoning is reductionist saying that what happened in Soviet Russia could simply happen anywhere because of corners cut in your words when in fact there have been no other nuclear meltdowns as terrible as Chernobyl since Chernobyl.
Whether you realize it or not you are making a safety argument by invoking Soviet mistakes and making them sound comparable and inevitable to the rest of the world which has had a pretty good spot record (less Fukushima and 3 mile, but those outcomes aren't comparable to Chernobyl).
You also have a great week - I hope my messaging sharpens what you are implying by your written argument.
The US had Three Mile Island. Japan had Fukushima.
One of the biggest arguments against nuclear is that reactors are insanely complex. Beyond a certain level of complexity, safety and predictability become impossible even with perfect management - which certainly doesn't exist in the nuclear industry.
This is especially true of any nuke system which needs external cooling, because stable water levels aren't a given any more because of climate change. Between floods, droughts, and storm surges, the environment is part of the system - something Fukushima discovered to its cost.
You should really consider educating yourself on the Chernobyl reactor melt down (read a book or two) to understand the level of calamity inflicted by the communist system. Stop trying to make it sound like that could happen anywhere because the pressures of capitalism could cause the same results. Its pretty eye opening how insane the chernobyl situation was.