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

World News

38255 readers
2287 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 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 !

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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

[–] [email protected] 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?

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

Any oil tanker sinking is a worst disaster than the worst nuclear accident ever was

You are delusional.

A nuclear power plant is not a bomb

I never said it was. A nuclear disaster is much worse than a bomb on the long term. A bomb causes immediate destruction and fallout which clears in a few years at most. A bomb like Hiroshima, which is by atomic bomb standards a very "dirty" bomb, gave a radiation dosage of about 360 mSv to survivors 1 mile from the epicenter. The radiation went down to 1/1000 in 24 hours and 1/1000 of that within a week.

Chernobyl firemen received 37 times the same dosage and the core kept emitting radiation to this day (though slowly diminishing) hence the sarcophagus.

Hiroshima was never even abandoned after the bombing. It is a thriving city today. Chernobyl and the surrounding regions had tp be evacuated and its access is restricted to this day. In the Russian invasion you had soldiers dying because they digged in contaminated soil. The melted core is, to this day, emitting deadly radiation and only the sarcophagus stops that poison from spreading. And it could've been much worse. And it will stay this way for centuries or even millenia. A breach in the sarcophagus is enough reason for panic. This was ONE disaster.

The current climate crisis is the result of over a century of CO2 emissions and multiple disasters. Chernobyl was just one and had the potential to turn half a continent uninhabitable. How many would we need to turn the planet into a wasteland in the immediate future?

I'm all to take measures to keep global warming in check but lets not burn the house down because the plumbing is not working.

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

You have 0 clue about radioactivity, how dangerous it is, how it works or even what it is. You are comically ignorant! You'll certainly tell me that chernobyl killed more people than Hiroshima and nagasaki bombs now?

Everyone needs its scarecrow I guess. Beware of bananas btw, those things are radioactive too.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You failed to address any of my arguments. You only attacked me and put words in my mouth. I see no point to keep answering you.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago

Boi you're the proverbial pigeon shitting on a chessboard.

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

Bananas are not radioactive, as they do not contain a significant amount of radioisotopes that emit high energy ionising electromagnetic radiation or alpha/beta decay products.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Ignorance again! Or is it hypocrisy? What is significant? What is radioactive?