• @slaacaa
    link
    11 hour ago

    “Honey, you look radiant”

  • Sundray
    link
    fedilink
    English
    117 hours ago

    “I don’t say this lightly, but I think your partner is toxic.”

  • ivanafterall ☑️
    link
    English
    169 hours ago

    Fine, she’s radioactive toxic sludge, but at least she’s here with me.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      56 hours ago

      “She may be a barrel of highly toxic waste, but ohmygod does she know her way around a penis.”

    • merde alors
      link
      fedilink
      128 hours ago

      there never was a better occasion to write in gender neutral terms

  • Pistcow
    link
    fedilink
    1710 hours ago

    Ok maaaybe nuclear power can be safe but it owned and operated by humans.

    • Jolteon
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Including all nuclear power plant disasters, it still has far fewer deaths per gigawatt hour compared to everything except large scale solar installations (not personal rooftop solar, which is much higher due to falls). It’s the money, not the safety, that’s the problem.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Safety per gigawatt hour sounds like it doesn’t take into account what we do with all the radioactive waste of which there’d be much more of if nuclear power was scaled up drastically.

        Could do with some more, especially more modern versions with less waste product and more efficient generation.

        Could do with more solar, too.

        But as you say… The Money™.

        • Jolteon
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          57 minutes ago

          All nuclear waste ever produced could be safely stored in less than a square mile (Plus a radius around that to prevent idiots tampering with it). The safety issues of it are greatly over exaggerated most of the time. The problem with that, is that storing nuclear waste safely is relatively (though not extremely) expensive.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            153 minutes ago

            Doesn’t increasing the concentration of nuclear waste make it’s effects much more dangerous?

            And sorry to pick for more info, but what’s the volume of waste in that one square mile?

            • Jolteon
              link
              fedilink
              021 minutes ago

              Technically yes, but practically no for the first question. Properly stored nuclear waste has very minimal radiation leakage.

              As for the second, it’s complicated. The actual amount of radioactive waste is less than 10,000 cubic meters. There’s quite a bit more than that of just water that has become toxic due to radiation, but the storage requirements of that are much lower. Here’s a rough infographic: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-all-the-nuclear-waste-in-the-world/

              Also, while The low level waste would still fit in a single square mile if you were restricted to that, using natural caves is a lot cheaper and easier than building tanks, so it’s not exactly a realistic solution.

      • Diplomjodler
        link
        13 minutes ago

        How do you know that? There are no reliable figures on the Chernobyl deaths because there was and is a massive ongoing cover-up. Same goes for Fukushima, Windscale and whatever the Soviets managed to sweep under the rug. Until you come up with some actually reliable figures, I suggest you stop repeating this obvious propaganda talking point