>When dealing with potentially "forever" contaminants, this is simply unacceptable.
That sounds subjective.
I think we need some kind of measures to judge the pros and cons of different solutions. Whether that means money, potential human lives loss, health issues.
If we consider health issues alone, the money loss from using much more expensive alternatives can mean less people will have access to health care and that might mean alternative solutions can be more damaging than nuclear power.
I am not saying that nuclear is better, but that we have to be careful and do a trough analysis before declaring something bad and declare something good.
By "we" I mean "we as society". Such analysis should be done solely through technical specialists, not through activists, business interests or through any subjective party.
That sounds subjective.
I think we need some kind of measures to judge the pros and cons of different solutions. Whether that means money, potential human lives loss, health issues.
If we consider health issues alone, the money loss from using much more expensive alternatives can mean less people will have access to health care and that might mean alternative solutions can be more damaging than nuclear power.
I am not saying that nuclear is better, but that we have to be careful and do a trough analysis before declaring something bad and declare something good.
By "we" I mean "we as society". Such analysis should be done solely through technical specialists, not through activists, business interests or through any subjective party.