this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
989 points (86.4% liked)

Science Memes

11445 readers
2145 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
[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

People don't put reactors next to cities for a reason. Meaning this scenario wouldn't happen. Nuclear is also one of the safest energy sources overall in terms of deaths caused. It's safer than some renewables even, and that's not factoring in advances in the technology that have happened over the decades making it safer. This kind of misinformation is dangerous. It's also not a good reason not to do nuclear. The reason why renewables are used more (and probably have a somewhat larger role to play in general) is because they a cheaper and quicker to manufacture. Nuclear energy's primary problem isn't safety but rather cost. It's biggest strength is reliability and availability. You can build a nuclear plant basically anywhere where there is water.

[–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I know nuclear is super safe but we have actual examples of accidents happening and making cities unlivable, you can't deny that.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which cities? I haven't heard of any cities being made unlivable, only towns and villages.

[–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

🙄 I'm sorry, I was unaware of the population requirement

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember. So it is literally a requirement that says you can't build reactors in high population density areas.

[–] whome@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Depends on where you live, Germany that gets the beating for phasing out nuclear, is so densely populated that these remote areas hardly exist!

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

That's actually an interesting point. Maybe we shouldn't put nuclear reactors in Germany.