this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
347 points (85.3% liked)

Science Memes

11299 readers
2612 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

Quite a few (if you remember not even a fraction oft its life time is over by now)

Also: radiation doesn't kill right away. Often you live 10 more years with weird symptoms and die from something like heart attack, so your death isn't counted as "caused by radiation exposure" but as "died from cancer" or "heart attack"

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes, radiation can kill people decades later, but so does pollution from burning fossil fuel. BTW, your link talks about nuclear accidents, not the number of people killed by nuclear wastes produced normally, which is what you claimed is killing people. A bit of a misdirection on your part, isn't it?

[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No one is arguing for fossils lol That's a strawman

And yes, I just gave you the first link I found, point given, but you wouldn't argue that nuclear waste is safe to be around would you?

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It's not a strawman. It is 100% completely comparable to your point. You're over here using deaths as a point against a technology when the current de facto standard society runs on us unimaginably worse.

But keep handwaving and calling actual legitimate arguments against what you're saying, "Strawmen." It's great and doesn't stifle healthy discussions in any way.

[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Dude, its a strawman because im not arguing pro fossil but pro solar, Wind, Walter and economical and social change.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

To be arguing pro solar, wind, water, and social and economic change, you would have had to have mentioned them. The only things you said were isolated anti nuclear rhetoric, lol. Ultimately, I agree with you, but read back through the comment thread, perhaps.

tl;dr - It was not a strawman, but opposition to your comments as existing in a vacuum.

[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Its like saying electric cars are good for the environment just because benzin cars are worse. Its not true. Both are bad for the environment.

The nuclear waste is a fucking problem, no matter if burning coal also is a fucking problem

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Speaking of strawmen, no one said nuclear energy is good for the environment. Nice job using exactly what you accuse others of doing, though. Spot on projection.