Anonymous #2 1w

Do you ban planes due to 9/11? Ban boats because of the Titanic? Shall we ban swimming pools due to drowning? Ban coal mining due to the massive amounts of death from toxic air, long term radiation exposure, cave ins, land slides (Aberfan Disaster particularly), or bc the past 20 years 460,000 deaths have been linked to emission pollution alone?

7

Anonymous #2 1w

The absolute worst case scenario with nuclear is still not as bad as a normal day of fossil fuels

5

My only qualm with that is how detrimental to accessibility and to the medical industry banning plastics would be. However we’re making a lot of strides with plant based plastics and I hope to see that tech develop more

7

I think you misunderstood my comment, or maybe I was unclear. I’m not saying nuclear power should is the mist dangerous source of energy or that it’s worse than any other, I’m saying nuclear disasters are much more psychologically terrifying than other harms that come from other sources. It makes sense that regular folks who aren’t energy experts would be scared of it, that’s not simply a concern for ‘stupid people’ or whatever. These industries need to do the legwork of earning trust

1

Anonymous #2 1w

It’s only that way bc big coal wants you to feel that way

0

Anonymous #2 1w

*not saying nuclear power is the most dangerous

1

Anonymous og_beer 1w

I think you also misunderstood my point. I understand the trade offs and I’m glad you went into detail on them. I’m saying the way folks feel about this isn’t stupid, it’s understandable psychologically

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Sure it makes sense if people mindlessly consume coal power propaganda material and don’t ever use their facilities to research and learn on their own. It only psychologically makes sense for people who refuse to educate themselves and learn. And, personally, that’s not a great excuse. Esp when people fight back to new info that would force them to change their minds

1

100% agree. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying it is what it is today for a reason. We need to help people learn instead of berating them as morons for being scared of a thing that is understandably scary if you lack all the facts

1

Anonymous og_beer 1w

Education is a privilege. Berating people for lacking education is entirely unhelpful and at the root of many issues we face today. We can do better

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I’m not berating people for not having education. I’m berating the ones who are presented with the opportunities to learn more about this specific topic and refuse it bc it doesn’t fit their current view of it. When told they may be wrong they don’t research or accept data presented to them. They dig their heels in deeper

1

Anonymous og_beer 1w

You opened with calling people stupid for being scared. I’m telling you that’s a bad approach, it’s not helpful despite it maybe sounding quippy online

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Fine dock me a morality point for being brash I’ll accept it

1

Anonymous #2 1w

climate catastrophe induced by the widespread burning of fossil fuels is one of the worst disasters to ever face life on this planet

1

Anonymous _orangutan 1w

You are the third person to misunderstand me, nowhere did I say that nuclear energy isn’t an excellent power solution or that climate change isn’t a huge problem. If we’re concerned with actually fixing that problem and not farming for upvotes on yy then we meet people where they are and explain why nuclear isn’t as scary as it understandably sometimes seems to be.

3

Anonymous #2 1w

I think it’s pretty well understood that people don’t often respond well to a call to action while being called a moron in the same sentence. I personally think it’s absurd to claim to care about the suffering of sentient beings while still eating meat produced in us factory farms. However since I actually care about creating solutions I save my personal judgement and meet people where they are so I can create change.

2

Anonymous #2 1w

i didn’t call you a moron

1

Anonymous _orangutan 1w

just clarified that any disaster, while i think it is a valid argument against a fully nuclear grid, pales in comparison to the one put forward by fossil fuels. nuclear is a transitional energy, and frankly we consume far too much energy. focuses should be on reducing total inputs, not accommodating for overshoot, another argument against nuclear

1

Anonymous _orangutan 1w

but yeah, nuclear isn’t scary, it just isn’t the miracle solution people believe it to be. that does not mean there shouldn’t be extensive investment into, just that in its current form, it is quite expensive, unscalable, nonrenewable, and has the extraordinary chance of meltdown. it can accommodate the heavy lifting that renewables currently cannot handle, but nuclear energies are laden with many other issues that need to be addressed

1

Anonymous _orangutan 1w

You didn’t, I was addressing the spirit of the post which I took issue with. My b tho, not your words

1

Anonymous #2 1w

But yeah I agree with most of that, nothing I said indicates that I disagree with the trade offs. My point is that nuclear energy is scary, that’s just a fact. It’s scary in the way that plane crashes or Waymo crashes are scary. All three of those things are much safer than most other solutions in their respective areas but to the general public they’re still scary. If we want to advocate for these solutions it is our duty to explain why they shouldn’t be seen as being so scary, as opposed to ca

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Calling people stupid for not immediately realizing the real trade offs

1