It’s almost like a robust EIA,ES, Planning, and PI process don’t exist to prevent reckless decision making without thought for consequence, mitigation, and alternatives.
It’s a non story
How the hell did this company get chosen in the first place?
As a nation we don’t care about millions of fish being killed. If we did we wouldn’t eat 1.3 million kgs of the stuff every day.
Remember, if you do it to find a nuclear dump site it’s bad ans “could kill millions of fish” “with huge risks to marine life”, but if you do it to find a site for [offshore wind](https://beachapedia.org/Seismic_Surveys) the fishes love it and that doesn’t deserve an euronews.green article. Totally different.
Put that glowing shit under parliament. Get some use out of it.
Find it quickly before the water companies kill then all with sewage.
More anti nuclear propaganda to keep the fossil fuel companies happy, they don’t want you to look at France.
Its an old article from the summer, hardly news
And any article that talks about Seismic Blasting is inevitably taking a highly biased / alarmist viewpoint slanted towards the more extreme wings of the environmental movement
The correct terms are airgun survey or seismic shooting
I like how, as a species, we’ve got the brightest minds of a generation to establish the best method to store nuclear waste so that it’ll be safe for [long beyond the existence of our civilisation.](https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1279277/)
And then capitalists looked at this research, then at the Ocean, and thought “one of these won’t cost **me** as much”.
why is it called a nuclear “dump” site? What kind of language is that? This reeks of an agenda at play
Finland has built a repository in a tectonic subduction zone. Wouldn’t it have made sense to pay them to build it bigger?
11 comments
Could.
It’s almost like a robust EIA,ES, Planning, and PI process don’t exist to prevent reckless decision making without thought for consequence, mitigation, and alternatives.
It’s a non story
How the hell did this company get chosen in the first place?
As a nation we don’t care about millions of fish being killed. If we did we wouldn’t eat 1.3 million kgs of the stuff every day.
Remember, if you do it to find a nuclear dump site it’s bad ans “could kill millions of fish” “with huge risks to marine life”, but if you do it to find a site for [offshore wind](https://beachapedia.org/Seismic_Surveys) the fishes love it and that doesn’t deserve an euronews.green article. Totally different.
Put that glowing shit under parliament. Get some use out of it.
Find it quickly before the water companies kill then all with sewage.
More anti nuclear propaganda to keep the fossil fuel companies happy, they don’t want you to look at France.
Its an old article from the summer, hardly news
And any article that talks about Seismic Blasting is inevitably taking a highly biased / alarmist viewpoint slanted towards the more extreme wings of the environmental movement
The correct terms are airgun survey or seismic shooting
I like how, as a species, we’ve got the brightest minds of a generation to establish the best method to store nuclear waste so that it’ll be safe for [long beyond the existence of our civilisation.](https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1279277/)
And then capitalists looked at this research, then at the Ocean, and thought “one of these won’t cost **me** as much”.
why is it called a nuclear “dump” site? What kind of language is that? This reeks of an agenda at play
Finland has built a repository in a tectonic subduction zone. Wouldn’t it have made sense to pay them to build it bigger?