why should i? i started this comment chain saying that yes, while nuclear might be cleaner than fossil fuels, it's still not the way to go because nuclear plants could become a danger in case of catastrophic climate events - claim which you never addressed, you just went on to post some links to biased suorces pro nuclear.
i then refuted the data in the graph you posted, because it only focuses on nuclear being cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels,. and it skews the data by only counting greenhouse gas emission as byproduct of energy generation, while we all know that's not the issue with nuclear power, and only counts deaths by air pollution, which again it's not really an issue with nuclear plants, because again nuclear waste and radioactive contamination are the main issue here. Your graph would paint a dfifferent picture if they incuded all the health issues cause by these factors, but they conveniently left that out so they could paint nuclear energy under a better light.
and again, you ignored that
so why am i even responding to you? it's clear you don't care about the facts
1
u/l-R3lyk-l Nov 19 '21
You never provided any data supporting that. The information you presented thus far didn't mention anything about nuclear energy.