Less Harmful Nuclear Power

Degrowth would be less harmful, downshifting and reducing consumption, than building more nuclear power.

What is less harmful?

Nuclear power is said to be less harmful than coal. It does not pollute environment and release radiation into atmosphere like burning coal.

If the cooling system of a nuclear power plant fails, it’s less harmful to let some steam out than risk overheating the reactor.

It is less harmful to convince the public that everything is fine, because otherwise there could be a panic causing more harm than the minor radiation leak.

It is less harmful to cool down the overheated reactor with seawater and return the radiating water back to the sea than letting the reactor melt.

It is less harmful to tell to the public that the radiation leak was as nominal as normal background radiation and not harmful at all than driving people to hoard radiation meters and iodine.

It is less harmful to tell that the reactor exploded but the casing will hold than cause an uncontrolled mass migration because of the lethal fallout.

After the reactor has melted, it is less harmful to convince everyone that the reactor will soon be sealed and any further radiation leaks blocked.

It is less harmful to tell people that the reactor seal is holding and they are safe than reveal that they are going to die soon because of radiation. There is no reason to burden their final days on earth with technical details.

Wouldn't it be way less harmful to downshift and reduce consumption to better match the capacity and resources of the earth instead of using nuclear power?


The most popular posts this week

Tips for Travelling and Surviving in the Balkans as a Vegan

Looking For All-You-Can-Eat Buffets in Santo Domingo

Finn-Savotta Challenge: The Conclusion