this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
653 points (69.4% liked)

Memes

45730 readers
728 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I hate to say it, but regardless of one's stance, on his back should be "Public perception of Fukushima, Chernobyl, and 3-mile Island."

I say regardless of one's stance, because even if the public's perceptions are off...when we remember those incidents but not how much time was in between them or the relative infrequency of disasters, they can have outsized effects on public attitude.

[–] sudo42@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

Didn’t you hear about that about that wind turbine that exploded and spread wind all over a dozen farmer’s fields? /s

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not a great idea from the risk. If future governments let the windmills fall into disrepair, all that happens is windmills are useless. They can never accidently summon centuries of nuclear winter.

[–] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

They can never accidently summon centuries of nuclear winter.

Neither can nuclear power plants, lol. Nuclear power plants are not built in a way that can trigger a nuclear bomb explosion, which is inherent to the theory of nuclear winter of nuclear explosions leaving material in the atmosphere to blot out the sun.

Maintaining a fission reaction is an incredibly complicated process that requires human intervention to sustain. If nuclear plants fell into "disrepair" the would just turn off and be useless, like windmills.

[–] spirinolas@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Dude, you realize a nuclear meltdown releases far more nuclear poison than a nuclear bomb. It's not about the immediate destructive potential.

A nuclear winter would last at most a decade or two due to the dust thrown into the atmosphere by the explosions. A disaster like Chernobyl, while not even close in terms of destructive power, had the potential to release enough radiation to leave half of Europe uninhabitable for centuries, maybe even millenia. Chernobyl is still dangerous to this day while cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving.

And to think you could just abandon a nuclear power plant safely...

You realize used nuclear fuel is extremely hot and still radiating heat and has to be cooled for a long time. You abandoned one without safety measures and the pools cooling the used fuel would just boil and evaporate. The water gone would no longer shield the radiation and you'd have a ton of radioactive material shitting poison into the atmosphere and meltdown.

Some people don't know shit about nuclear power and like to act condescending "it's not like a nuclear bomb". No, it's far more dangerous. And all it takes is a couple of really bad accidents to ruin the planet. And Murphy's law tells us those improbable accidents will happen eventually. That means with nuclear power, quick or slowly we are walking towards the abyss. When we reach it we fall and there's no way out.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

Indeed. Nuclear fuel is not pure enough to summon ~~Eternal Night~~ nuclear winter.

[–] DontMakeMoreBabies@lemm.ee -4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The sheer quantity of stupid people that exist is staggering.

And really depressing.

Because I want to be like 'who gives a shit what those frothing retards perceive as scary' but... There are just so many.

And they are so easy to steer with fear.

Maybe that's the trick?

Try something like "Coal causes abortions and makes white baby Jesus cry!" with a dash of 'Muslim folks can't use Nuclear power!'

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Yeah that really convinces me. I'm stupid so ill switch to your point of view

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

It's not clear what your trying to stay, but if you're saying that coal is very bad and nuclear power is better, that's not untrue, but it's important to remember that the economic pressure right now is against coal and for renewable energy, even in coal country businesses won't build in a state that won't explicitly commit to only building renewable energy exclusively for all new ot replacement energy sources. The situation isn't perfect, there should be more aggressive removal of dirty energy, granted, but nuclear power isn't the only clean option, and it comes with a lot of risks.