But ok go do it, no taxpayer money tho. I won't hold my breath tho. How about one rule? No building nuke plants along the ring of fire? And not by the ocean? Or is that impossible because they need to be able to dump water into the ocean in an emergency?
Just not viable.
Here's a conspiracy theory, they did obviously fake climate change propaganda to get people to be against legit environmental concerns.
Umm what? You're the one relying on semantics here. You think if only 1% of nuke plants melt down they're all safe? No if one melts down none are safe. I can see you're not gonna respond, that's ok. Don't try to shut down discussion with insults like that.
Read the comments to that x.com link they debunked it better than me.
Log in
They always melt down and aren't viable without taxpayer money?
What about the 98% that haven't? newJiminy is a sith for sure. He goes out of his way to speak in absolutes.
Yet. What happened 50 years ago?
But ok go do it, no taxpayer money tho. I won't hold my breath tho. How about one rule? No building nuke plants along the ring of fire? And not by the ocean? Or is that impossible because they need to be able to dump water into the ocean in an emergency?
Just not viable.
Here's a conspiracy theory, they did obviously fake climate change propaganda to get people to be against legit environmental concerns.
How did I fall for the trap again like so many have. Next is a 20 layers conversation based on whether he knows what the word always means.
Umm what? You're the one relying on semantics here. You think if only 1% of nuke plants melt down they're all safe? No if one melts down none are safe. I can see you're not gonna respond, that's ok. Don't try to shut down discussion with insults like that.
Read the comments to that x.com link they debunked it better than me.
100% = always
1% = sometimes
safe = subjective