this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
31 points (91.9% liked)

World News

38578 readers
2038 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] 3 points 1 year ago (69 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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (49 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (14 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Both sound terrible.

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We are on a time limit thanks to climate change. We can't afford to complain about picking the lessor of two evils.

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

The option proposed is that making a small area of the planet inhabitable or worsening climate change. Sorry but that’s a shitty comparison.

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

Bet you’d feel* differently if you were a resident of one of the island nations that’s going to drown in the next decade or two. That part of the world’s definitely going to be uninhabitable if we continue to do nothing.

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

By not picking, you are picking fossil fuels. Because we can't fully replace everything with solar/wind yet, and fossil fuels are already being burned as we speak.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.

That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.

That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it huh?

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (45 replies)
load more comments (64 replies)