Anonymous #1 6d

A single plant 40 years ago

24

Anonymous #1 6d

The text is tiny and you can’t zoom in but the nuclear number specifically includes Chernobyl and Fukushima

21

Anonymous OP 6d

*pats you on head*. Wowie! What good input, you keep slugging along and maybe one day the adults will take you seriously champ!

-11

Anonymous #1 6d

Lmao absolutely no rebuttal to being shown your beliefs are just based on anecdotal and emotional evidence other than being a condescending prick

22

Anonymous #1 6d

How you gonna be wrong and act this condescending

13

Anonymous #1 6d

Yeah that’s what happens when the fucking soviets one of the most corrupt empires in history runs a nuke plant. Three mile island (our Chernobyl) killed absolutely no one and it would never happen again because reactor designs have changed

15

Yeah the 100 grams of nuclear waste produced per person in a year that goes and sits in a reinforced metal cask underground is much dirtier than the 16 tons of CO2 produced by the average American that just goes directly into the atmosphere or oceans. Cut me a break dude lol

21

Anonymous OP 6d

Or waste that gets recycled into even more fuel like what they’re doing in France.

19

Anonymous #4 6d

I hadn’t even heard about that, sounds pretty cool though

13

Anonymous #4 6d

Also bro deleted the comment lmao

7

Anonymous OP 6d

No, somebody reported it actually cuz you are all triggered snowflakes

-6

Anonymous #1 6d

I’d honestly love if the mods stopped removing your comments so everyone who sees this can realize how severely dumb and arrogant you are but unfortunately I guess you’re breaking rules

22

Anonymous #1 6d

theres a whole show, documentaries, and more on why that wasnt a flaw inherent in nuclear power facilities but with a broken system and cheap standards

27

Anonymous #1 6d

Chernobyl says more about the failures of Marxism than Nuclear power.

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

As a guy with a masters in electrical engineering and currently doing a PhD in radiation physics/biophysics, this is an unbelievably based post. Make America Smart Again

65

do you have anything to say about what i mentioned

18

Me when common sense > actual science and education

24

Bro we studied Chernobyl in medical health physics and went over exactly what they did wrong… 3 Mile Island had a reactor melt down, ever hear of that? We handled it bc we’re Americans and not stupid ass commies and actually know what we’re doing… we have had/still have researchers all over the country understanding the biological effects of radiation and radiation safety in nuclear power plants. The risks are virtually 0 now it’s so safe you can live literally right next to one

27

i’m barely educated on nuclear plants and i know you’re talking bunch of bs. if you actually studied chernobyl, you would know its design was very flawed

9

I’m begging you bro, if you hate the RFK vaccine bull shit and want to trust in the experts who do that for a living, pls learn to educate yourself and trust the actual science and experts. I promise you the best possible minds in the country who are working on this stuff are truly the best people to actually do it. The insane amount of oversight that goes into making a plant, designing it, location, running it, replacing the source material, ect is insane.

16

At my school when we’re changing out our radioactive seeds for implantation for cancer patients, we have insane in house oversight. When we changed out our cobalt-60 for the gamma knife, we had to have FBI oversight on top of state oversight. The safety precautions done by our health physics and safety drills are rigorous. We are genuinely locked the fuck in.

16

Anonymous #1 6d

Yeah you should find out WHY Chernobyl happened. Graphite tipped bars introduced an extra element into an otherwise clean and stable reaction because the USSR cut corners with their funding and audits and employed incompetent overseers. Nuclear energy is an excellent idea, the biggest eco-threats from it are as a result of obtaining the fuel, not using it. Do even the slightest amount of research before talking.

11

Anonymous #1 6d

You’re far more likely to get cancer working in a fossil fuel plant than a nuclear power plant.

13

Anonymous #12 6d

you do know how little nuclear waste there is relative to the power it produces compared to other fuels, right? and that we have very safe and effective means of storing it? and power demands wont go down unless like nuclear winter

14

Anonymous #8 6d

It’s worth looking at how much work the trump admin has done to erase safety oversight on the construction of nuclear plants, he wants these built quickly and cheaply. Just because we have the knowledge and technology to safely implement this doesn’t mean that it’s gonna work out like that

6

Anonymous #12 6d

What do you think nuclear waste is?

4

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 6d

GREEN GLOWY GOOOOOOOOO

6

Anonymous #5 6d

That’s pretty RAD.

5

Anonymous #5 6d

bruh ik what nuclear waste is, I took a whole class dedicated to looking at both sides. I haven’t fallen for past propaganda of what it is either. humans have never made something that can last a fraction of the length nuclear waste exists for. It can’t be contained. unfortch it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. That’s the real solution… not more energy that will CERTAINLY cause problems down the line. Humanities hubris

-1

Anonymous #12 6d

“It can’t be contained.” Yeah it can. Not forever, but you can say that about anything.

4

Anonymous #12 6d

You also didn’t answer my question, you just claimed to know the answer.

10

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 6d

it can only be contained for decades (vs it being dangerously hundreds of thousands of years). sure you can say that about anything but we’re talking about nuclear waste …. Even if it does last that long (not certain) how would we even communicate to future generations to continue to maintain it? languages last only 1-2k years. it’s impossible to build something to maintain it long enough AND to communicate its danger long enough. look at how we open up tombs despite warning signs! It is a

0

Anonymous #12 6d

why can it only be contained for decades? and do you think youre the first person to ask these questions? and the last person thats going to think about it?

1

Anonymous #12 6d

We have not created a storage solution that lasts as long as the waste remains dangerous. relying on it IS a technocratic solution that doesn’t look ahead enough and also maintains the status quo of constant growth.. nuclear treats the symptom not the cause of our energy issues. It’s a delay tactic with real consequences for future generations. So again, I’m pro degrowth instead. I wish it was possible to imagine that as a reality instead

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 6d

Bruh because answering it doesn’t change anything and it’s insulting. it’s the spent rods from nuclear power reactors that are radioactive and decay very slowly. Like I know it’s not fucking green goo

0

Anonymous #12 6d

I mean that’s just one example, I was also referring to previously used equipment used in working with nuclear materials. I didn’t mean to be insulting. I also never claimed you believed it was green goo.

1

Anonymous #12 6d

Degrowth is not possible, especially with the rest of the world wanting the same comfortable lives as the first world energy needs will continue to go up and reliable baseload renewables like geothermal are still in the research phase. We need to be building fission until geothermal, fusion, and tidal become viable for mass energy production

1

Anonymous #5 6d

Listen man I’ve read many articles in the class I took, that’s how I know. things corrode! what’s the longest last thing humanity has created? If you want to find out go look it up yourself instead of asking me redundant questions to try to make me look bad. I’m not the first person to ask or think about it… your point? these are still real issues we can’t wave aside

1

Anonymous #12 6d

There’s still lots of research still being done about dealing with nuclear waste, like recycling it into more advanced reactors, or finding better ways to dispose of it. One of the most interesting ways I’ve seen is by disposing of it into the sun using cheap small rockets

6

Anonymous #4 6d

I never said it would be easy or even feasible. the global north needs to make reparations and descale… These futures aren’t possible if we don’t allow ourselves to consider them. just because nuclear is a solution doesn’t make it the ethical or right one. Degrowth would be nearly impossible under our current structures of power but it’s something to think about and aspire to

1

Anonymous #12 6d

May I propose an alternative idea? If you really want to decrease the energy usage, you shouldn’t seek to decrease energy used by all of the population. A much more productive way would be to depower the 1% lobbying and committing insider trading in order to keep energy demands high.

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 6d

Yeah that’s a good idea, we need to keep thinking along those lines instead. we don’t NEED nuclear

1

Anonymous #12 6d

bruh the amount of nuclear waste that's ever been produced can fit on a football field. i think the several gigatons of CO2 we produce annually is gonna ruin us more in the long run

1

Anonymous #9 6d

The irony of you saying in the long run 😭 . I’m not advocating for more CO2 either…

1

Anonymous #12 6d

Humans are entitled to be ambitious and want better for themselves, yes there should be justice for the atrocities committed by colonialism in history but what’s done is done we can’t force people to give up a life that they find comfortable, not to mention highly developed technologies and education systems being used for things critical to humanity like medical research which wouldn’t be able to exist without proper energy or education networks all of which aren’t possible in a dg setting

0

Anonymous #12 6d

you anti-nuclear mfs are so uneducated and don’t care to do actual research. you’re no different from the antivax crowd. you both don’t trust expertise or science 💀 yes GHG emissions are much more likely to lead to catastrophe than nuclear power. we literally know GHG emissions will lead to an extinction level threat in about a hundred to two hundred years if we stay on business as usual

1

Anonymous #9 6d

Im not fucking uneducated. I literally took a whole ass Ivy League course on this issue. We can’t put blind faith in Science without the humanities.. I already know GHG is bad and if you read any of what I said you’d know that. I am NOT advocating for GHG. I just don’t think nuclear is the right solution!!

-1

Anonymous #12 6d

we wint ve alive to see the worst of climate change in our lifetimes. we’ll just be around long enough to see the beginning of mass migration and rampant death

1

Anonymous #12 6d

Yes. you are uneducated. It’s ok little buddy, stay in school and one day we may take you seriously 👍

1

Anonymous #12 6d

For the record, while I do disagree with some of what you’re saying. I think you have some good points.

1

Anonymous #12 6d

cool, my brother is Ivy League educated and completely disagrees with you, along with my professors who study green engineering

1

Anonymous #9 6d

You also have some good points. you don’t have to talk down to people, though.

1

Anonymous #12 6d

mf thinks taking an ivy league course makes them the pinnacle of education 💀

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 6d

I talk down to the inferiors

1

Anonymous #12 6d

I’m in the hard science and believe that humanities are important how do the humanities factor into not expanding nuclear over fossil fuels or non-baseload renewables when we don’t even know the extent of what we could possibly do with it.

3

Anonymous #1 6d

12 isn’t uneducated I think they’re just coming at things from an academic mindset, with more experience in the theoretical than practical. Degrowth isn’t something that’s supported by the humanities (the desires of human society) or something that would be optimal for scientific progress (the stem angle).

1

Anonymous #4 6d

#1 is a troll, don’t bother.

0

Anonymous #12 6d

“blind faith in science without the humanities” wtf does nuclear have to with the humanities any more than fossil fuels do lmao. when weather starts getting severe, i will blame all you anti-nuclear folk for why we don’t have extra time to fix the problem. yall should literally f off, most of yall don’t have engineering backgrounds yet you wanna make engineering choices

0

Anonymous #12 6d

like i said, yall are the engineering equivalent of anti-vax

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 6d

i’m getting pissed off at ignorance being masked as “analysis” when it’s obvious people are just talking to talk. you’re not wrong tho, i need to get off social media for a bit because i’m getting ragebaited by everyone atp

5

Anonymous #9 6d

This is literally how I feel anytime I’m on this app. I genuinely can’t believe there’s people like this in my day to day life

-1

Anonymous #9 6d

I’m also fully on team nuclear.

1

Anonymous #17 6d

Did it

7

Anonymous og_beer 6d

Guess you didn’t see this part. Now Google nagasaki and hiroshima.

-1

Anonymous #1 6d

That’s what I said 💀💀💀

3

Anonymous #12 5d

#12 on downscaling POWER: are you aware that this would drop the equality of life for everyone? You do know that there’s recycling for both nuclear fuel and other waste products that enters it not only safe but also reusable. Eat the oil giant and anti-nuke propaganda that has contributed to the ban of nuclear recycling.

6

Anonymous #10 5d

idk why you’re getting downvoted you’re real af for that

2

Anonymous #19 5d

Let me clarify, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have nuclear power, I just don’t think it should be used for inspiring millions of people. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inhumane and I’m baffled at how many people think because it happened a long time ago that this behavior was justified. No, war is never justified and neither is intentionally harming people and/or causing cancer and deformities for generations to come

1

Anonymous #19 5d

Nuke recycling

1

Anonymous #19 5d

To be fair, nuclear bombs are using FISSION reactions, not FUSION reactions, huge difference in energy creation concepts there, mainly that FISSION is a chain reaction uncontrollable once begun, and a FUSION reaction might just need a graphite rod to stabilize the reaction and stop the energy production in its tracks should something go awry. Calling them both “nuclear” is technically accurate, but one is like the literal opposite reaction from the other. Agree on the war take tho

13

Anonymous #17 5d

Already discussed below. Chernobyl was one accident and basically every other form of energy causes more death and greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear

4

Anonymous #17 5d

Also Nagasaki and Hiroshima were intentionally deployed to cause basically as much death and destruction as possible so that doesn’t seem like a great comparison

3

Anonymous #12 5d

People aren’t going to simply stop using energy or start using less of it anytime soon. So we might as well find ways to produce it cleanly

8

Anonymous OP 5d

That’s solar and wind. Sucks because the windmills kills our birds and solar panels take up too much space/land and are inefficient. The current process for energy is the best

1

Anonymous og_beer 5d

And if we continue at this pace and relie on nuclear energy those things are gonna fill the entire earth. What then? We have no way to safely dispose of nuclear

1

Anonymous #17 5d

I’ll just keep posting it until you’re smart enough to comprehend what you’re reading that’s ok

8

Anonymous og_beer 5d

I understand perfectly. What YOU can’t understand is that nuclear waste that’s inside those containers can’t be stored anywhere else. If we switch to nuclear that amount will be 100 fold. Then in 200+ years we’ll have large amount of land that’s pretty much unusable and radioactive

1

Anonymous og_beer 5d

If the entire world switches to nuclear do you think that tiny plot of land is gonna remain that small? It will grow exponentially

1

Anonymous #17 5d

And coal waste being stored safely in our lungs, blood streams, and bones are so much better. You’re so right 🥰🥰🥰

3

Anonymous og_beer 5d

Better we just have a mix of coal, solar, hydro, and wind.

1

Anonymous #17 5d

No it’s better we eliminate coal completely until we have developed technology to make solar and wind energy reliable, safe, and efficient (without massive waste) :)

3

Anonymous og_beer 5d

How about we develop green tech 1st, life extend or nuclearize coal until we have the green tech?

1

Anonymous #18 5d

Because it will take years and global reform to establish green tech, leading to countless tons of unnecessary emissions, waste, and other damages being pumped into the environment and our planet. Why wouldn’t we mass implement the safest and cleanest energy we have to be the main source to tie us over? Anyone who says nuclear isn’t these things it’s just straight up wrong. Homer Simpson is more informed lmao

1

Anonymous og_beer 5d

That’s fr

1

Anonymous og_beer 5d

That’s what I’m saying

1

Anonymous #17 5d

Nuclear is arguably *more* clean and efficient than solar and wind when you consider the supplies required to actually begin/continue generating energy. The waste produced is extremely insignificant in environmental impact even when compared to just the mining footprints of solar and wind. I agree we always need to think about better ways to take care of nuclear waste and understand the effects of radiation, but we can’t let fear dictate decisions

1

Anonymous OP 5d

Recycling of ☢️ fuel & other waste but was banned in the U.S.

1

Anonymous #6 4d

Fair

1