Hi Dede,
dedeleco wrote:Remundo wrote:For Three Mile Island, fortunately the structure held up. There was no significant dispersion of radionuclides or radiation
Okay, but considering the beautiful big bubble of hydrogen in Three Mile Island, we can speak of a miracle that it did not explode, because then the enclosure withstand at best 5 Bars recalled in the report from A3 ( et al.) would have left in pieces and would have polluted and contaminated the USA before Chernobyl !!
It is true that they were lucky ...
My point is my realization that nuclear is supposed to be infallible in perpetuity which is impossible humanly.
The consequences with a Chernobyl, (humanly totally inevitable sooner or later, in a populated region like in France, or in China or in Japan or in the Indies), obliging as a result of extreme radioactivity, in one day to evacuate forever (centuries or even millennia) an entire region of tens of millions (even a hundred million) of inhabitants, are such that it is madness to take this risk !!!
The orders of magnitude are too broad, but indeed, when you get confused, and it happens one day or the other with a central, it's serious. Industrial risk is the product of gravity x occurence ...
The pro nukes argue that the occurrence is almost zero, the anti retort that the gravity is infinite. Meanwhile, the atom splits and the lobby is constantly gaining ground.
Natural global warmingl (not even scientifically proven with indisputable certainty that CO2 is the cause), will not evacuate in less than a day, in perpetuity, a hundred million inhabitants like a new Chernobyl !!!
12000 to 14000 years ago, without cow farts or human CO2, the sea rose more than 2 meters per centuries, going from -120 meters to -30m, a speed much more than 10 times the current speed !! Indisputable scientific fact !!
125000 years ago, hot period as now, for 2 to 3000 years it was warmer at least 3 ° C and the oceans 3 to 5m higher, without the slightest human CO2 !! Scientifically indisputable facts, practically not explained !!
Yes then there, it is fashionable to deny global warming. CO2 in the long term is as dangerous as nuclear in the short term.
So the CO2 cause of global warming is far from being scientifically proven !!
You can make the same kind of assertion ... by replacing "proved" by "refuted".
I'll tell you, don't take it for yourself, RC deniers only have nitty-gritty and "intellectual wanking" arguments when it's not just well-thought-out verbal talk.
To know the subject, you have to type the IPCC report in English, which means that 99,9% of the population is perfectly misinformed on the subject. Worse, even among scientists, including deniers, in general this report is simply read diagonally.
If we look for some serious arguments that testify to CR, there are many: thawing of permafrost in a few decades when it has never been observed for centuries, reduction of more than 50% of the ice surface area in North Pole, unprecedented retreat of Pyrenean or Alpine glaciers ...
These are climatic earthquakes: it usually takes 10 years to observe such transitions, but there, 000 years have been enough and this exactly coincides with the massive anthropogenic release of CO100, the destruction of natural carbon sinks (deforestation and acidification of the oceans ...)
The rise in sea level is also indisputable.
This is not proof, of course. But it is an overwhelming bundle of presumption for human activities.
Personally, I live in the central massif and I observe from my childhood that the winters are milder, the snow lasts less and the quantities are lower. Kid, I was having fun in a snowdrift 3m high between 2 of our buildings. Since the 90s, there has never been more than 1m.
Similarly, farmers observe the precocity of many harvests, especially everything related to fruit and grapes.
Etc ... For the moment it's nice, we foolishly say that it is softer and that we are less cold. It is the continuation around 2050 or 2100 which is likely to be boring.