• bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are clueless about how nuclear wastes or radiation work. Any oil tanker sinking is a worst disaster than the worst nuclear accident ever was. A nuclear power plant is not a bomb. Radiations are not a magic disaster that erase life.

    Meanwhile co2 is an actual life extinction threat, and Germany opened coal power plant to compensate for nuclear energy. What a great move ecologists! Bravo !

    • spirinolas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Any oil tanker sinking is a worst disaster than the worst nuclear accident ever was

      You are delusional.

      A nuclear power plant is not a bomb

      I never said it was. A nuclear disaster is much worse than a bomb on the long term. A bomb causes immediate destruction and fallout which clears in a few years at most. A bomb like Hiroshima, which is by atomic bomb standards a very “dirty” bomb, gave a radiation dosage of about 360 mSv to survivors 1 mile from the epicenter. The radiation went down to 1/1000 in 24 hours and 1/1000 of that within a week.

      Chernobyl firemen received 37 times the same dosage and the core kept emitting radiation to this day (though slowly diminishing) hence the sarcophagus.

      Hiroshima was never even abandoned after the bombing. It is a thriving city today. Chernobyl and the surrounding regions had tp be evacuated and its access is restricted to this day. In the Russian invasion you had soldiers dying because they digged in contaminated soil. The melted core is, to this day, emitting deadly radiation and only the sarcophagus stops that poison from spreading. And it could’ve been much worse. And it will stay this way for centuries or even millenia. A breach in the sarcophagus is enough reason for panic. This was ONE disaster.

      The current climate crisis is the result of over a century of CO2 emissions and multiple disasters. Chernobyl was just one and had the potential to turn half a continent uninhabitable. How many would we need to turn the planet into a wasteland in the immediate future?

      I’m all to take measures to keep global warming in check but lets not burn the house down because the plumbing is not working.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You have 0 clue about radioactivity, how dangerous it is, how it works or even what it is. You are comically ignorant! You’ll certainly tell me that chernobyl killed more people than Hiroshima and nagasaki bombs now?

        Everyone needs its scarecrow I guess. Beware of bananas btw, those things are radioactive too.

        • spirinolas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You failed to address any of my arguments. You only attacked me and put words in my mouth. I see no point to keep answering you.

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

          Bananas are not radioactive, as they do not contain a significant amount of radioisotopes that emit high energy ionising electromagnetic radiation or alpha/beta decay products.

          • bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ignorance again! Or is it hypocrisy? What is significant? What is radioactive?

    • drewdarko@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      What does a sinking oil tanker have to do with anything? That’s just whataboutism. Nuclear waste, nuclear disasters and sinking oil tankers are all bad.

      “Radiations” can absolutely “erase life”. You don’t think radiation can kill living things? That statement makes it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Besides, It takes 10-15 years to make a new nuclear power plant. If you really care about sinking oil tankers and climate change you’d realize that we don’t have that much time.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Germany did nothing but burn coal and gas in 20 years since they’ve decided to leave nuclear energy. Is that your plan?

        Radiations don’t erase life. Beaches would be full of dead bodies otherwise and you wouldn’t eat bananas. You have no clue about radioactivity obviously so you might as well trust people who do.

        • spirinolas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “Radiations”

          Ahahahah!

          Regardless of how wise it is to use nuclear energy, we can all deduce, from your replies, that you know jack shit about what “radiations” actually is.

          • bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is that something about how English language is so specific? It always come back to that when facts can’t be disproven.

            • Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Then please illuminate how high energy radiation is not dangerous. I do not believe that you can do that, as you appear to never have attended a physics or biology class in your life