• Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Even Fukushima wasn’t that bad in terms of human casualties.

    This is such a bizarre qualifier. Like when people handwave climate change because the rocks will still be here.

    • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      How is it bizarre? Did you ever understand the qualifier? I’m pretty sure you didn’t, so I’ll explain it for you.

      It “wasn’t that bad” in regards to human life, because no one died. The implied other side of the quality is that it still was bad because there was a release of radioactive material into the environment.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 minutes ago

        So you see how it’s bad, unless we’re talking about humans literally dying as a result.

        Yay? Am I supposed to give nuclear a point because “only” the environment and animal life was trashed? Okay, sure. “Less Deadly To Humans” than oil. Y’know people still eat Gulf seafood, but if that pipe was spewing radioactive waste for a month, they wouldn’t.

        Actually, they probably would. I dunno. Renewables. That’s all.