Corruptistan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 28, 2022
- Messages
- 1,475
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
That's not the argument, the argument is when things go wrong it can become catastrophic and a huge environmental disaster as we have seen in Japan, Russia, USA , UK etc. . You haven't addressed the point of radioactive waste contaminating the land but then you dwelled onto some future pie in the sky solution which has it's own inherent risk to cause a global disaster. Karachi and surround areas are at risk of Earthquakes and hurricanes so Nuke plants should be kept far away from population areas but ideally there should be no nuclear power except experimental ones for weapons research.
Nuclear power is the safest and cheapest source of energy for Pakistan. Probably the most environmental friendly as well once the molten salt reactors enter mass production which is just a question of time. The nuclear field is constantly changing for the better too. Meaning more effectivity and safety.
Your last part of the post is an oxymoron. You agree with nuclear fuel used for actual potentially destructive purposes (in other words weapons intended for said destruction = nuclear weapons) but you are opposed to nuclear energy? I don't get it.