hessenjunge

& it already happened:

https://images.jpost.com/image/upload/f_auto,fl_lossy/t_JD_ArticleMainImageFaceDetect/472066

I’m an atheist and still find this blasphemous mockery of Christianity disturbing.

Even if it is typical it is still hypocritical.

When the horseshoe becomes a circle…

I, as a German, once asked Syrian and Turkish friends on their opinion on Jews. Their answer “The only thing Hitler did wrong was not finishing the job.” sure surprised me as did other really shitty experiences with non-friends from the same Region.

Do I hate Syrians and Turks now? No, because I’m not a fucking asshole that generalizes whole groups of people.

Sorry, I thought it was clear: there was and is also fish ‘Inland’ that is poor people’s food.

The inlander could eat freshwater fish like trout or carp, no fancy saltwater fish.

Sauer Kraut

Bummer, your straw man didn’t work.

You were done for before you started. Your sole way of ‘winning’ for your precious, precious nuclear fission is bringing up fossil fuels to steer the discussion away from renewables.

You’ve proven again and again that you only read headlines that you understand only partially. Your impotent ranting against ‘my definition’ of toxicity was especially entertaining.

The constant bad of your person culminates in claiming that I said that fissionable material good for only a short time which is a short 230 years. I did not. You constantly misinterpret and misrepresent facts. This can’t be blamed on your reading capabilities alone.

Again. At present consumption level fissionable material lasts about 230 years. That’s a massive amount of time and would make fission an option as risks and cost involved are outweighed by the benefits.

Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10. Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:

230/10=23; 230/20=11,5

Result: fissionable material lasts 11,5 to 23 your if we followed your masters’ advice. Is very simple maths I’m sure you can follow.

I could now try to explain as to how long it takes to get a reactor on the net and how it would be active to short to make a dent. You’ll either not understand it or misquote it again.

Next you again throw another bunch of shit on the wall: technology we don’t have yet (fusion, thorium, etc). We might be able to build reactors using that hopefully within the next decade. Right know we don’t and we don’t know when we can. Shit didn’t stick, sorry.

Does the fission lobby pay you well for your service?

Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.

So If you buy a used car you only use the sales guys expertise as he knows the car best and don't bother asking an independent mechanic? Got ya, bless your heart.

.. Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.

No, it's just a couple of statistics. It's better than the other piece but that's a low bar.

Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.

... did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.

Natural occuring radiation exists elsewhere as well. Intensity and containment are pretty important. You didn't bring anything to the table.

Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.

You have literally no idea what you are talking about. Never heard of underground aquifers for instance?

Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.

Straw man again, really?

This article is by psychologists. Relevance?

This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.

I'm only interested in factual evidence. You tend to only read headlines and that only partially while again peddling the fossil straw man.

PS: Oh right, almost forgot.

No, you tried to hide the iceberg. Didn't work. How obviously bad faith are you trying to be?

At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years.

I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don’t want to start another long discussion.

Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.

ITT the church of nuclear energy strikes again.

Let's skip renewables, pretend there's enough fissionable material and start a straw man discussion about coal my brothers in nuclear. Atom.

Nuclear just means massive ~~potential~~ radioactive pollution as there is no secure storage for the radioactive waste. You are now going to claim there is proven safe storage, there just a couple of mishaps really.

Also, more importantly, there isn't even enough fission material to sustain demand for significant time if Germany and others were to switch. But sure lets's just skip and ignore renewables. Renewables pollute so much.