Mr. Ambien Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 You still didn't get it. Marjanes???? I posted it as I'm tired of the bleeding heart environmentalists and 1 sided viewpoints - so I posted the "other" side. Point is, no energy is completely without faults/impact. You've known me a long time, I'm not too sure what's going on with your tangents here. Edit: FYI - I started this thread. That's why one speaks with their wallet, and their vote. And that's why PC's have been running the country for so long. Letting environmentalists dictate policy because of their religious attitude about a science matter, and amazingly "intellectual" fiscal ideas finding ways to spend other people's money, rather than lead by example, is not a road Canada wants to go down. They'd rather stick with the &^@#ed up conservatives than have environmentalists lead the country, which tells you everything you need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 No it's the fact that the waste from nuclear fission is extremely hazardous. You don't want nuclear waste to get into any water table. Add to the fact when accidents happen, the repercussions are horrific. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima. In addition, when a plant gets shut down. You don't just dismantle it. You actually have to bury the thing in concrete. Canada has one of the best safety records in nuclear. But despite the efficiency, the risks are not to be taken lightly. If you add up the effects of fossil fuel alternatives, it's far worse. Global warning, mining, tanker spills, tar sands etc.. The issue is misinformation and overreactions to easily avoidable accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.