Na it’s dumb. The issue with the magic rocks isn’t the direct consequences like with the fire. The issues with these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.
Yeah, the environmental issues that are orders of magnitude less problematic than literally pumping the toxic chemicals into the atmosphere like with fossil fuels, vs comparatively miniscule amount of solid waste to store inert.
What consequences?
There are no consequences for animals in Chernobyl, they are thriving in all aspects, even mammals living underground (mutations are fiction).
People that didn’t leave the exclusion zone died of old age there.
Life on Earth had to deal with all sorts of radiation.
What caused mass extinction was ecosystem change, eg via global climate change.
Na it’s dumb. The issue with the magic rocks isn’t the direct consequences like with the fire. The issues with these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.
Yeah, the environmental issues that are orders of magnitude less problematic than literally pumping the toxic chemicals into the atmosphere like with fossil fuels, vs comparatively miniscule amount of solid waste to store inert.
The comparison is dumb. The subject was the comparaison, and not what type of energy is better for the environment.
You’re interpreting.
Coal smoke is more radioactive than the outside of a fission reactor anyhow.
What consequences?
There are no consequences for animals in Chernobyl, they are thriving in all aspects, even mammals living underground (mutations are fiction).
People that didn’t leave the exclusion zone died of old age there.
Life on Earth had to deal with all sorts of radiation.
What caused mass extinction was ecosystem change, eg via global climate change.
You bury them in concrete, done. Nuclear waste isn’t an issue and hasn’t ever been