this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
361 points (95.0% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2804 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] spirinolas@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (17 children)

Downvote me all you want but nuclear is not a long term solution. Short term at best.

It's relatively clean compared to fossil fuels but it has several critical flaws on the long term.

For starters, it produces extremely toxic waste which we have no idea how to get rid of besides burying it and forget about it. Everytime someone mentions this all we hear is "we can create x method to dispose of it cleanly". Right, but while we develop X method that shit keeps piling up. And when X method fails to work as we intended "oh, well, just keep bury it and lets start thinking about Y".

And the biggest problem is this. Nuclear is actually relatively safe since the security regulations are (or should) be very strict. But all it takes is one bad enough disaster. Disasters like Chernobyl had the potential to leave half of Europe inhabitable for centuries. But, hey, as long as the regulations are strict and we have equipment and procedures that manage the human error we would be fine, right? Not really. Murphy's law. The worst scenario will happen eventually. A obscure bug in the security systems, an unexpected natural disaster, war or terrorism. There's always a failure point. In other energy types, we can manage that risk. One very rare disaster is not enough to make it not worth it if the good outweights the bad. Not in nuclear energy. Only one disaster can be potentially catastrophic and outweight all the good it made for decades or even centuries.

On the long term it is just not worth it. On the short term...it's a gamble.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (12 children)

You are clueless about how nuclear wastes or radiation work. Any oil tanker sinking is a worst disaster than the worst nuclear accident ever was. A nuclear power plant is not a bomb. Radiations are not a magic disaster that erase life.

Meanwhile co2 is an actual life extinction threat, and Germany opened coal power plant to compensate for nuclear energy. What a great move ecologists! Bravo !

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What does a sinking oil tanker have to do with anything? That’s just whataboutism. Nuclear waste, nuclear disasters and sinking oil tankers are all bad.

“Radiations” can absolutely “erase life”. You don’t think radiation can kill living things? That statement makes it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Besides, It takes 10-15 years to make a new nuclear power plant. If you really care about sinking oil tankers and climate change you’d realize that we don’t have that much time.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Germany did nothing but burn coal and gas in 20 years since they've decided to leave nuclear energy. Is that your plan?

Radiations don't erase life. Beaches would be full of dead bodies otherwise and you wouldn't eat bananas. You have no clue about radioactivity obviously so you might as well trust people who do.

[–] spirinolas@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"Radiations"

Ahahahah!

Regardless of how wise it is to use nuclear energy, we can all deduce, from your replies, that you know jack shit about what "radiations" actually is.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is that something about how English language is so specific? It always come back to that when facts can't be disproven.

[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Then please illuminate how high energy radiation is not dangerous. I do not believe that you can do that, as you appear to never have attended a physics or biology class in your life

[–] agarorn@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

Germany did nothing in the last 20 years? Are you high. Did you even think about looking up how the energy production changed during that time?

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)