this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
988 points (86.4% liked)

Science Memes

14703 readers
1232 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

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

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



Research Committee

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
 
(page 7) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 34 points 6 months ago (8 children)

The problem isn't that they exploded one time. The problem is that that one explosion is still happening and likely will be for quite a while.

On the other hand, modern rock exploding plant designs are so much better that it's very unlikely to repeat itself, so there's that.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

Paraphrased but this is right.

And the people were taught to talk about the horrible nuclear accidents that killed a few but completely glance over the unimaginable millions perished in the name of oil, mustn't even mention the mass extinction events we launched with oil.

We even spread exaggerated bullshit about radiation mutation (wtf? thats superhero comic books fiction!!) and cancer rates (only one really), ignoring how much overwhelmingly more of the both we get from fossil fuel products.

We are like prehistoric people going extinct bcs of the tales how generations ago someone burned down their house so fire bad. Well, actually not like that - we are taking with us a lot of species & entire ecosystems too.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

For huge countries as like the US: Maybe. You have enough space to also store the trash somewhere for thousands of years.

For small countries, like most of Europe, where the population density is way higher: hard pass.

People also seem to be forgetting that there are a lot of crazy dictators with bombs right now.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Storage isn't that much of a problem, even in smol Europe countries.

Also it's contained in specific areas, some nerds are bound to wanna reuse what we now think of as trash/spent fuel. If it's still radioactive after it just means it radiates energy, we just didn't commercially learned how to harness it. There are ongoing studies into that too.

And radiation isn't as problematic as we are taught by media - humans lived in Chernobyl exclusion zone until death by old age, mammals there are thriving. The dangers of radiation are immediate tissue damage or thyroid cancer (again via tissue damage) if iodine isn't taken by exposed people.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

Those same countries that found space for all the rest of their industrial waste?

Nuclear waste has a tiny footprint. Fence off a couple square km for security, dig a small but deep hole, and there ya go.

Obviously oversimplifying, but the point is that nuclear waste is a tiny issue. The entire world's waste could be stored in a single warehouse if we wanted to (we don't).

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

iirc nuclear waste isn't really that big of an issue anymore, they just drill a really deep hole that's like a foot across and nobody will ever see it again

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 53 points 6 months ago (4 children)

You're right to reject the logic behind that because it's nonsense. Its not making sense to them because they still presume some kind of good faith when it come to these sorts of things.

The reason we haven't built more nuclear power stations is because oil, gas and coal companies will make less money, if we build more nuclear power stations.

They have the means, the motive and they have a well recorded history of being that cartoonishly villainous. Nothing else makes sense.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Not even a joke, that's a very concise way to put the argument.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Na it's dumb. The issue with the magic rocks isn't the direct consequences like with the fire. The issues with these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

What consequences?
There are no consequences for animals in Chernobyl, they are thriving in all aspects, even mammals living underground (mutations are fiction).

People that didn't leave the exclusion zone died of old age there.

Life on Earth had to deal with all sorts of radiation.

What caused mass extinction was ecosystem change, eg via global climate change.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, the environmental issues that are orders of magnitude less problematic than literally pumping the toxic chemicals into the atmosphere like with fossil fuels, vs comparatively miniscule amount of solid waste to store inert.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (7 children)

these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.

You bury them in concrete, done. Nuclear waste isn't an issue and hasn't ever been

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Except the retard didn't just burn his house down, he burned thousands of people's houses down in such a way that nobody could ever live there again, and came very close to burning down the whole continent in the same way.

(I'm still in favour of spicy rock steam)

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Isn't nuclear energy like super safe and have killed incredibly few people compared to all the other energy sources?

Or are you talking about destilling the magic rocks very much and putting them in a bomb?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Exactly.

The whole clusterfuck of mishandled Chernobyl cleanup & everything there before and after only claimed a few lives (via direct radiation tissue damage or just accidents).

Compare that with the daily average of thousands of killed in various (ultimately) oil wars.

But we don't even get news about that.

But western propaganda sure showed us malformed babies & claimed it was from radiation - it turns out it was all bullshit, it was always a toxic chemical behind it (unregulated industries selling toxic shit by the tonnes - fertilisers, paints, even biological warfare).

We just take radiation super seriously and completely disregard toxic chemical pollution of eg industrial spillages. People just get to live in polluted areas and die sooner because of that. Instead of living for longer & with less health hazards but with a little radiation.

And lastly - burning coal released way more radiation into air than nuclear accidents.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

Or to put it another way, we almost ruined a large swath of land and learned from that mistake, but chose not to use it so when we do have to switch to nukes because destroyed our planet we will have forgotten all those lessons and do it again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 6 months ago (14 children)

One time? Wikipedia says over 100 serious incidents and lists about 30 of them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents&wprov=rarw1

It's fine if you like nuclear, just don't try and claim it was one time. It poses serious risk and should be treated as such.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The house burning probably happened more than one time too.

wiki/List_of_oil_spills

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Just put it somewhere noone lives like the Dakotas or places people who don't matter live, like west Virginia. All the coal miners getting cancer anyway, why not double tap?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Most of those didn't involve the magic rocks, and most didn't hurt anyone.

More people die creating the building materials for a powerplant (or a windmills, or a solar panel) than ever during operation. The numbers really don't matter.

I honestly don't care what we do, as long as we stop burning coal, oil and gas. The way I see it, every nuclear plant and windmill means we all die a little later.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

Anon is so dense that he will surpass the Poincaré recurrence time of the Universe, and will exist forever. This also means that for every iteration of the current universe he passes through, another iteration of anon will be produced, such that there will eventually be enough idiot anons to form its own entire universe.

Anon is infinitely and eternally stupid.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›