• Comment105@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    16 hours ago

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

    • Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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)

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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?

        • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          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.

      • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours 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.

    • moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      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.

      • dev_null@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        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.

        • moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          The comparison is dumb. The subject was the comparaison, and not what type of energy is better for the environment.

          You’re interpreting.

        • T156@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Coal smoke is more radioactive than the outside of a fission reactor anyhow.

      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours 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.

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        14 hours ago

        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

        • spirinolas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Yeah, just bury it and make it someone else’s problem in the future.

          I’ve seen this train of thinking somewhere. Spoiler alert, it was a bad idea.

          • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 minutes ago

            someone else’s problem in the future

            Nope, if you bury it in a few inches of concrete it’s literally never a problem again unless society somehow completely collapsed and all knowledge of nuclear waste is lost

            I’ve seen this train of thinking somewhere. Spoiler alert, it was a bad idea.

            I’ve seen this level of confidence from people who don’t know what they’re talking about before. Spoiler alert, it’s embarrassing for you