this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)

World News

34956 readers
466 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Good!

Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don't understand.

Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

We've had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we'd do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

imagine how much farther ahead we would be in safety and efficiency if it was made priority 50 years ago.

we still have whole swathes of people who think that because its not perfect now, it cant be perfected ever.

[–] danielbln@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I mean it's not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.

Nuclear power isn't 100% safe or risk-free, but it's hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclear, renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.

Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.

It's really not that complicated.

[–] umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Both sound terrible.

I don’t really want to pick the lessor of two evils when it comes to the energy.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Since you can apply that logic to everything, how can you ever build anything? Because all consequences are dire on a myopic scale, that is, if your partner dies because a single electrician cheaped out with the wiring in your building and got someone to sign off, "It's not as bad as a nuclear disaster" isn't exactly going to console them much.

At some point, you need to accept that making something illegal and trying to prosecute people has to be enough. For most situations. It's not perfect. Sure. But nothing ever is. And no solution to energy is ever going to be perfect, either.

[–] sederx@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

a wind mill going down and a nuclear plant blowing up have very different ramifications

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

Exactly, just like a windmill running and a nuclear power plant running have very different effects on the power grid. Hence why comparing them directly is often such a nonsense act.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

An electrician installing faulty wiring doesn't render your home uninhabitable for a few thousand years.

So there's one difference.

[–] cooopsspace@infosec.pub 1 points 2 years ago

The risks are lower in literally everything else...?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn't be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.

The radiation would only affect a small area of the planet not the whole world, and technically radiation doesn't even cause climate damage. Chernobyl has plenty of trees and plenty of wildlife, it's just unsuitable for human habitation.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn’t be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.

Here's my favorite way to put it: because of trace radioactive elements found in coal ore, coal-fired power plants produce more radioactivity in normal operation than nuclear power plants have in their entire history, including meltdowns. And with coal, it just gets released straight into the environment without any attempt to contain it!

And that's just radioactivity, not all the other emissions of coal plants.