I doubt it's what you say.
All countries have ties to fossil fuel. There is even a shared history of oil and nuclear energy
Apart from that, currently Britain prepares to go all-in on nuclear power — after years of dither and Keir Starmer expected to confirm result of 15-year search for investment at UK-France summit next month. For me, this would be a reason not to spread fearmongering on this matter.
So, any other reason you can think of to back your argument?
And what would be the gain for the UK Parliament to use fearmongering tactics for something like that?
Fair enough. I just got alarmed by your reaction to the video I linked. Take care
Please, don't drink from this teacup. It's really not safe.
From UK Parliament Committees:
Sellafield’s race against time: nuclear waste clean-up not going quickly enough, PAC warns
Report highlights latest picture on delays and cost rises in c.£136bn 100-year nuclear decommissioning project.
The PAC’s report finds that Sellafield Ltd has missed most of its annual targets for retrieving waste from several buildings on the site, [...] Sellafield Ltd’s underperformance will likely remain extremely hazardous for longer.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “The intolerable risks presented by Sellafield’s ageing infrastructure are truly world-class. When visiting the site, it is impossible not to be struck by the fact that one can be standing in what is surely one of the most hazardous places in the world. This is why we expect Sellafield’s management of its assets, and the delivery of the project to decommission it, to be similarly world-class. Unfortunately, our latest report is interleaved with a number of examples of failure, cost overruns, and continuing safety concerns. Given the tens of billions at stake and the dangers onsite to both the environment and human life, this is simply not good enough.
Edit: Since in the report they say the witnesses told us that the radioactive particles are “contained” in the soil and do not pose a risk to the public I thought it would be appropriate to say that at least they used brackets. The degradation of soil and groundwater needs to be taken into consideration as well. And let's not forget the impacts on local biodiversity.
Nuclear is considered 'clean' in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Radioactive waste is not clean in other terms and their disposal is highly problematic. It replaces one problem with another.. France is a great example of this problem because they are very advanced in nuclear energy. They struggle with this and smuggle their nuclear waste to other places in the world.
As for the 'safe' part, this is also debatable.
For humans see a febr 2025 paper on unaccounted cancers fukushima,
For the planet as a whole see a Febr 2025 paper about Fukushima Contaminated Water Risk Factor: Global Implications
I believe there is no reason to compare. Different kind of 'teribility', let's say.
It leaches enough radioactive water into the ground to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool every three years. There is no way to stop the leak until the silo can be emptied, which takes decades.
Sellafield was formerly known as Windscale. In 1957 it was the site of Britain’s worst nuclear disaster.
Fair enough! Now that I think about it, maybe I should have specified that this is an online approach. It includes finding them, reading them and having a dictionary for translating them. Then, at some point, you learn them by heart. Also, I don't think that just doing this is enough, but it somehow speeds up the initial process, especially for speaking.
I read many great approaches here. One thing that I have the impression it was not mentioned is song lyrics. It's like syntax and vocabulary get somehow absorbed or something. And it's fun!
I totally agree with everything you said :)
I just created an account in PieFed and it looks very interesting because there is the option to create your own feeds! I had the wrong impression that you can only choose from the existing ones. This is so exciting!!!