this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
963 points (86.2% liked)

Science Memes

11130 readers
2548 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
fossilesque@mander.xyz
SciBot@mander.xyz
963
Anon questions our energy sector (slrpnk.net)
submitted 5 days ago by MataVatnik@lemmy.world to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
386 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Asetru@feddit.org 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What nonsense is this?

Compare gloves that were used once to turn valve on pipe in reactor room to shit from coal in your lungs.

No shit, Sherlock... The reactor room is shielded by the water. Something you had in there once shouldn't be overly radioactive and the fact that it isn't doesn't say anything about the dangers of radioactive waste.

Even most active kind of waste everyone thinks of - spent fuel - consists from about 90% of useful material.

What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the dangers of radioactive waste?

Actually not.

Actually yes.

new nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh [...]. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated [...].

[–] uis@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Something you had in there once shouldn't be overly radioactive

It still counts as radioactive waste. It was example of something regular people don't associate radioactive waste with, but still counts as one.

Something you had in there once shouldn't be overly radioactive and the fact that it isn't doesn't say anything about the dangers of radioactive waste.

"This waste shouldn't be overly dangerous and the fact that it isn't doesn't say how dangerous it is". Wow. How did you do this?

What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the dangers of radioactive waste?

Did you read what I write?

I will rephrase you:

What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the amount of radioactive waste?

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 0 points 4 days ago

"This waste shouldn't be overly dangerous and the fact that it isn't doesn't say how dangerous it is". Wow. How did you do this?

Here I thought you're just slow and didn't read what I wrote so I was already preparing to just explain what I said.

What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the dangers of radioactive waste?

Did you read what I write?

I will rephrase you:

What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the amount of radioactive waste?

This is where I realised you're just trolling.