Science Memes

11189 readers

2903 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

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

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

Research Committee

[email protected]

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]

984

Anon questions our energy sector (slrpnk.net)

submitted 1 week 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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Caffeine is dangerous and can kill humans in large doses AND meth exists. It's not one or the other, genius. Please mainline some caffeine to prove your point. Meth exists, you'll be fine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yes it can. Pretending it's that dangerous in doses normally consumed by humans in say coffee would be silly though and that's exactly what you are doing. Like you could make a dirty bomb from spent fuel rods, but that's irresponsible. You could build outdated and unsafe reactors, but again that's irresponsible. You could also burn people to death using the power of the sun and some mirrors. Do you get my point?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

doses normally consumed

So we can just put an much caffeine into a person as we want because it's ok in normal dosages? That's wrong. Your analogy sucks. You can't discount danger because of normal conditions. Tsunamis weren't normal for Fukushima. Do you understand?

Do we get to ignore things that get labeled irresponsible? Plus, if there's been a hundred incidents, that pretty much says we aren't and cannot be responsible enough to prevent them.

Your points aren't worth arguing further. I will not be engaging anymore. Feel free to continue to think that your analogies are clever; I will not.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago

How many of those incidents killed anyone? It's the same with aviation, lots of incidents but few are actually fatal. We still fly everyday.

You can argue all you want but unless you have something that's actually significantly safer then what are you going to do?