Gerprimus

joined 4 months ago
[–] Gerprimus@feddit.org 8 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Is that her name on her necklace?

[–] Gerprimus@feddit.org 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)
[–] Gerprimus@feddit.org 9 points 4 months ago

Is the laptop connected to 2.4 or 5 GHz Wirth WiFi? In my setup I never get more than 80 Mbit with 2.4 GHz.

[–] Gerprimus@feddit.org 0 points 4 months ago

Furthermore, any energy production that has the potential to injure, harm or kill thousands of people cannot be considered safe. Just because nothing has happened so far.

[–] Gerprimus@feddit.org 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

What are you even talking about?!?! There is so much uranium in the world. Even if we completely switched over to nuclear power and without improvements in Nuclear tech, our sun would have fizzled out and we still would have uranium left. Uranium is more abundant than silver and we don't need much to power a nuclear reactor.

And yet we would still be dependent on an industry, just as we are today on coal, gas and oil.

I like how people take Fukushima and Chernobyl as examples for disasters. Please go look up how many people have died from those disasters. Please go check. I'll wait.

As others have already answered: far more people died than you claim here! How much land was made uninhabitable for centuries? How many animals would have to die? How much food would have to be destroyed because it was contaminated? What happens if a tsunami hits an offshore wind farm? They collapse... And then? Do they have to be rebuilt?But you can do that because the land has not been contaminated

[–] Gerprimus@feddit.org 14 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Nothing about nuclear energy production is good, sensible and safe! You are dependent on a finite resource, you have to put in an incredible amount of effort to keep it running. Not to mention the damage caused by a malfunction (see Fukushima and Chernobyl).