Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
I’m not an expert, but I don’t think nuclear reactors have much in common with nuclear bombs. Reactors are also “explode” only when are overhead, which shouldn’t be a concern in sea. Also it’ll operate far from where people live.
I am not concerned with it exploding in the ocean. I am worried about it accidentally hitting shore and strewing nuclear waste around humans. Or a fleet of them being tossed inland from a tsunami or something.
I’m not an expert, but I don’t think nuclear reactors have much in common with nuclear bombs. Reactors are also “explode” only when are overhead, which shouldn’t be a concern in sea. Also it’ll operate far from where people live.
But very interesting concept indeed.
From what i understand molten salt reactors are quite safe as well .
I am not concerned with it exploding in the ocean. I am worried about it accidentally hitting shore and strewing nuclear waste around humans. Or a fleet of them being tossed inland from a tsunami or something.
Basically what corky said. I’m not worried about explosions… I’m more worried about accidents that cause irreparable harm to fragile ocean ecosystems
But I guess you aren’t worried about the irreparable harm that ocean acidification is already causing?
“I’m worried about X.” “The fact you aren’t worried about Y is very telling. My friend is a Y-ologist and says Y is very serious.”
“I have something that will Solve Y.”
“Yes but have you considered theoretical scenario X that isn’t really related to your solution to Y?”
Do you just choose not to fully read a conversation? Or is cherry picking just a fetish for you?