• Broken_Monitor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    Man thats fucking vague click bait headline. What isotope? How much activity? What was in the water? Nah lets not talk relevant details, lets just spread uninformed fear of the nuclear industry instead.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      55
      ·
      11 months ago

      The clean-up operation is expected to take decades, with the most dangerous part — removing radioactive fuel and rubble from three stricken reactors — yet to begin.

      Nothing to see here, people. We have everything under control. Like, we totally know what we’re doing.

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          27
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Your house is on fire, but the good news is I just saved a lot of money on my car insurance.

          The lesser of 2 evils is not a compelling argument for energy consumption when the Earth is dying.

        • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          11 months ago

          Tell that to the tens of thousands of people that were displaced. And the alternative to nukes is obviously not fossil fuels but renewable energy.

          • Ucalegon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            The Three Gorges dam displaced an approximate 1.3 million people, is of questionable structural integrity because of rushed construction, has had a huge impact on its immediate environment and in the event of a breach endangers 400 million people. While that monstrosity is an outlier, in most instances the construction of a dam will displace a lot of people and carries a sizable risk of breach if the construction isn’t carried out properly. Should or shouldn’t hydroelectric be considered environmentally friendly?

            • Deceptichum@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              11 months ago

              Hydro is the 70s idea of green.

              See how people usually only talk about wind/solar rather than suggest building more dams?

              If anything places are starting to dismantle dams to restore ecosystems.

              • TunaLobster@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Wind and solar have relatively short material lifespans that are expensive or impossible to recycle. It’s all a double edged sword. There is no single solution that will work everywhere on this planet.

            • dalekcaan
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Nuclear power as seen by someone who has no idea what nuclear power is.

              • leaskovski@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I know what nuclear power is, I’m just confused as to why someone would use the word nukes, which is clearly associated with the ammunitions.

                Nuclear power has its place in the energy generation system alongside natural energy sources.

                • dalekcaan
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Sorry if I was vague, I meant the person you were replying to doesn’t know what nuclear power is, which is why they use a fear mongering term like “nukes” to describe nuclear power.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, you’re right. It’s not that they’re trying to be careful and prevent more damage, it’s going to take that long because they’re stupid. /s

        • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          31
          ·
          11 months ago

          Nobody knows how long they’re going to take because they still don’t have a fucking clue about how they’re going to do it. I’m not blaming the people working on this stuff, my point is that this technology is still uncontrollable despite what all the apologists keep trying to tell us.

          • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            23
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s more than apologists. For a number of years now, across most social networks, the nuclear lobby has planted astroturfers. You can’t get humans to agree on shit, yet anyone touting nuclear power as the savior of humanity in the face of climate change is a transparently obvious corpo plant with all of the same talking points as each other. It was just a matter of time before the propaganda took organic roots in real people.

            Let’s never explore wind/solar/hydro power. Only nuclear.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      52
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      While you’re right about the nitty gritty specifics of the case, the nuclear industry needs no help spreading fear of itself. Fukushima happened 13 years ago. Not exactly ancient history. Worst nuclear disaster of all time.

        • CoriolisSTORM88@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          For those of you who were confused by Maya, like me, it is the Mayak or Kyshtyn accident.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

          That being said, I don’t think the nuclear industry of today should be hamstrung by Soviet incompetence and corruption from the 1950s. I mean these guys at this location were running open loop cooling circuits into the lake and river. We know better than this nowadays.

      • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        And has since been learned from. That reactor design is no longer used, specifically because of that. It would take more than just negligence to get a modern reactor to fail. Spreading fear of nuclear benefits no one and harms everyone.

      • Rooskie91@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, Fukushima was almost as bad as climate change! Good thing we phased out nuclear to focus on fossil fuels!

        • felykiosa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Never said that I m actually pro nuclear but I had to say that Fukushima wasn’t the worst nuclear accident

  • gregorum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Shugo has been sniffing the uranium again…

  • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    SiiiiiiiiiiiwOOOOOOOOooo this shit hit diffrent than regular cocain. What’s it made of?