• Clarke
    link
    fedilink
    -15 months ago

    Just so we are on the same page the original starting point of this entire conversation was somebody asking if nuclear is safer than solar and wind.

    I responded that yes technically there are more deaths per capita with solar and wind because the installation procedures are hazardous people keep falling to death and getting crushed. My entire point by bringing up those deaths. It that they are edge case worst case scenarios. However I am still an advocate for renewables such as solar and wind power and offshore sea power. I just realized the reality of the situation that is grid scale storage and how it is currently not feasible to maintain a grid scale storage with out base load power stations such as coal natural gas and nuclear. I would like to remove the coal and natural gas power plants and upgrade them to nuclear plants. Just like a meltdown would be a worst case scenario.

    The facts are that meltdowns are exceedingly rare, and we have learned from and improved upon the design of the reactors in use over the last century. Yes nuclear power is 90 years old at this point.

    People get crushed and fall to death all the time. Furthermore if it’s a modern containment style reactor design then there is basically no risk of long-term contamination.

    Tell me more about my opinions and what they are. I don’t think you understand what the word nuanced means. Especially if you are proponent of a nuclear scary and scary is bad mindset. Are there potential risks Yes are there potential rewards also yes weighing the pros and the cons. I am pro nuclear.

    • @reversebananimals
      link
      fedilink
      15 months ago

      Nope. The starting point of your and my interaction was you making a snarky meme containing 0 facts that implied anyone who thinks nuclear reactors are scary or have risks are so dumb they can’t tell the difference between 2 copies of the same picture.

      Then when I called you out on your juvenile behavior and the emotional nature of your argument, you implied I had no reading comprehension and told me to read your other comments.

      To use your phrase, “the facts are” that it only takes one bad-enough meltdown to potentially obliterate life on the planet, and that makes nuclear power of any kind a VERY complicated topic. Nuclear power CAN be very useful, but it can also be very dangerous.

      Pretending like its a magic bullet is infantile and only harms your cause.

      Don’t like my ad-hominem attacks against you? You’re getting treated the way you treated all of Lemmy when you posted that dumb meme. Now you know how you made everyone else feel first.

      • Clarke
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        My entire point is that idiots like you are comparing modern reactors which can’t melt down to catastrophic levels like a Chernobyl event to a f****** RBMK Soviet reactor. A design thought up 80 years ago a design that was out of date when it was constructed. A design that had no fail safes. A design that had no containment vessel. Totally the same thing though. The meme is for you since you cannot tell the difference between the two

    • @reversebananimals
      link
      fedilink
      15 months ago

      Tell me more about my opinions and what they are. I don’t think you understand what the word nuanced means. Especially if you are proponent of a nuclear scary and scary is bad mindset.

      Just as an illustration, you just told me you didn’t like me putting words in your mouth, then 2 sentences later put words in my mouth. I think you need to reevaluate how you interact with others, and try to treat people the way you want to be treated.