this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
988 points (86.5% liked)

Science Memes

11440 readers
788 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
988
Anon questions our energy sector (slrpnk.net)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
386 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Batbro 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I guess destroy != Make unlivable

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

People don't put reactors next to cities for a reason. Meaning this scenario wouldn't happen. Nuclear is also one of the safest energy sources overall in terms of deaths caused. It's safer than some renewables even, and that's not factoring in advances in the technology that have happened over the decades making it safer. This kind of misinformation is dangerous. It's also not a good reason not to do nuclear. The reason why renewables are used more (and probably have a somewhat larger role to play in general) is because they a cheaper and quicker to manufacture. Nuclear energy's primary problem isn't safety but rather cost. It's biggest strength is reliability and availability. You can build a nuclear plant basically anywhere where there is water.

[–] Batbro 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I know nuclear is super safe but we have actual examples of accidents happening and making cities unlivable, you can't deny that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which cities? I haven't heard of any cities being made unlivable, only towns and villages.

[–] Batbro 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

🙄 I'm sorry, I was unaware of the population requirement

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember. So it is literally a requirement that says you can't build reactors in high population density areas.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Depends on where you live, Germany that gets the beating for phasing out nuclear, is so densely populated that these remote areas hardly exist!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

That's actually an interesting point. Maybe we shouldn't put nuclear reactors in Germany.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And that cannot happen. It's a fear people have because they equate a nuclear power plant with a nuclear bomb. That is as wrong as considering the earth flat.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Chernobyl

But that was a really old tech, the plants built after 1990s shouldn't allow this scale of pollution even if all the stops are pulled and everything breaks in the worst way possible

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Chernobyl yes, let's talk about it : after the catastrophy, 2 reactors were used until very recently (like until 10 or 20 years ago).

After the catastrophy, Chernobyl was made into an exclusion zone where people wouldn't be allowed to live. But people came back 10 years after and it's a small village now.

BTW even Hiroshima and Nagazaki that were annihilated with atomic bombs, that is weapons meant to destroy whole cities, were quickly inhabited again.

So much for the permanent destruction and millions of years of contamination. CO2 is a far more deadly compound for mankind than any radioactive material. Anti-nuke militants are merely ignorant fanatics.

[–] Batbro -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fukushima?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Fukushima, in 2024,is a city of 272569 inhabitants. If that's unlivable, I'm fine with it. Hiroshima, Nagazaki and Chernobyl are all inhabited too.

Saying that nuclear stuff makes places unlivable is plain wrong, it's anti-science. It's comics level of bullshit science. Travel in time is a more serious theory than nuclear stuff destroying the planet.