Thread

1. reactordev · 1789929782 · focus · HN ↗

   Full steam ahead towards greenhouse gases, climate change, and +5degree temperatures. Why not?

   1. bayindirh · 1789930779 · focus · HN ↗

      Because it'll create value.

      Value which won't bring anything to anyone. I mean, a couple of people can be more richerer, but we and them won't have a planet to spend or enjoy these theoretical riches at the end.

      So, no biggie.

      1. tosapple · 1789931197 · focus · HN ↗

         define 'climate pollution', this is all fine and well until they apply it to nuclear shielding.

         1. harimau777 · 1789935384 · focus · HN ↗

            I'm not clear what you mean. While nuclear waste is certainly a thing that could hurt the environment if mismanaged, impacting the climate isn't really a way that it does so. The shielding also seems like an unusual thing to focus on as opposed to the waste itself.

            1. tosapple · 1789936716 · focus · HN ↗

               'shielding', is applied to both the energy extraction process of fission activity AND the remnants.

               you're definitely not clear on the meaning.

               1. plorkyeran · 1789959341 · focus · HN ↗

                  Yeah, I'm definitely not clear on what you're trying to mean. How about you actually state your point rather than vaguely alluding to something?

                  1. tosapple · 1789968623 · focus · HN ↗

                     [dead]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.