While true, the study obviously underestimated the evidence we gathered in the real world. It's not simple to handle numbers with many 0 behind them, therefore it's good to have multiple approaches.
I did, and it says things, but not the things that the original commenter said, nor implied. But apparently calling out misinformation is not welcome here.
True but In 2023 the alternatives are not nuclear vs coal, but nuclear vs wind and solar. The fallout for each accident is immense. Western Europe dealt with Tschernobyl for years. Japan was just lucky that the wind blew in the other direction.
If the world triples nuclear power plants, and we deal with an accident every 7-10 years, that’s gonna be a serious problem, even if it is “just” country sized areas that become unfarmable or so.
Slightly off topic, there are about 450 nuclear plants on earth. A noted MIT study in 1989 estimated that each nuclear plant only has a worst case nuclear accident every 20000 years.
Statistically that would make one every 44 years.
In our history we have had nuclear power plants for about 60 years, and so far there were three worst case nuclear accidents.
You are making this sound more mysterious than it is.
The benign terminology in this blog article is: “act 2” is the ground offensive, the “act 1” was Hamas’ attacks on Oct 7. There’s also no mention of “act 3”.
Assuming this is in the USA it’s either family that is hurting and wants to show it, or, more likely, some White National Christian Fashists who see this as a possibility for a new PizzaGate/Adrenochrome panic, this time with actual children involved, but as usual with call to actions that help no one but hurt innocent bystanders.
Did he also explain how tearing down the poster of a missing child would deescalate the situation and promote peace? This line of causation doesn't seem obvious to me.
I’m not overly familiar with any of these. During those crisis, was anyone serious about abolishing the institutions of the United States? McCarthy at least seems to have used the institutions to his ideology.
I’m not defending Israel settlements in the West Bank.
But that’s largely independent from Hamas actions or intentions. Hamas was founded before the first intifada, and it existed at relatively peaceful times when the talks about a two state solution were meant serious on the Israeli side. Their intentions then were not different from today’s.
Hamas never wanted peace, and they never wanted to peacefully coexist.
(*) edit: wait did you say me pointing out how Hamas uses civilians as shields is unfair against the Hamas??
Whoever thinks Israel purposefully targets civilians ignores how Hamas operates. It has been documented for years by the UN and human rights organizations that they use civilians as shields.
Getting Palestinian civilians dead is part of their strategy.
It would also not have been possible with their design, if all the failguards wouldn't have failed.
But 2 in 60 years, both of western design, is still more than that study estimated.