My annoyance was with the casual way in which you dismissed it as some kind of irrelevant relic of the past. Sure modern nuclear technology is half a century (and more) advanced than that used by the Soviets in constructing Chernobyl and a whole host of other facilities. The French quite clearly demonstrate the role nuclear energy can play in answering a country's energy needs (and others, since they export a large amount of energy into the European market). However, that does not mean that nuclear is the right solution given the burden of waste it places on further generations. Our short-term gain is their long term pain. Now, I could, of course, reitterate Plaid Cymru's position on nuclear energy since it is one that I share but it seems to me that you have no real desire to listen to me so feel free to go and read it for yourself.
(Original post by TopHat)
I'm not denying it happened, I'm questioning it's relevance to the question "are modern nuclear power plants safe to construct". Given Chernobyl was not, by any means, anything like modern nuclear power plants, the fact it went into meltdown does not in anyway mean that modern nuclear power plants will do so as well. As such, to use Chernobyl as some excuse for not investing in nuclear energy is farcical. You're just invoking a personal belief that has absolutely no grounding in science that somehow nuclear power is "uncomfortable", rather actually examining the facts before you. Mind you, given you've dropped to ad hominems, I suspect you know the paucity of your argument and are trying to hide it, as usual, by attacking people evidently more capable on the subject than yourself. It's your defence mechanism.
The ad hom, in this case, was perfectly justified. You were being obnoxious.
Last edited by obi_adorno_kenobi; 14-06-2012 at 21:31.