Science Memes

11408 readers

1526 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

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

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

Research Committee

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

989

Anon questions our energy sector (slrpnk.net)

submitted 1 month ago by MataVatnik to c/[email protected]

386 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bouh 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And that cannot happen. It's a fear people have because they equate a nuclear power plant with a nuclear bomb. That is as wrong as considering the earth flat.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Chernobyl

But that was a really old tech, the plants built after 1990s shouldn't allow this scale of pollution even if all the stops are pulled and everything breaks in the worst way possible

[–] bouh 3 points 1 month ago

Chernobyl yes, let's talk about it : after the catastrophy, 2 reactors were used until very recently (like until 10 or 20 years ago).

After the catastrophy, Chernobyl was made into an exclusion zone where people wouldn't be allowed to live. But people came back 10 years after and it's a small village now.

BTW even Hiroshima and Nagazaki that were annihilated with atomic bombs, that is weapons meant to destroy whole cities, were quickly inhabited again.

So much for the permanent destruction and millions of years of contamination. CO2 is a far more deadly compound for mankind than any radioactive material. Anti-nuke militants are merely ignorant fanatics.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fukushima?

[–] bouh 5 points 1 month ago

Fukushima, in 2024,is a city of 272569 inhabitants. If that's unlivable, I'm fine with it. Hiroshima, Nagazaki and Chernobyl are all inhabited too.

Saying that nuclear stuff makes places unlivable is plain wrong, it's anti-science. It's comics level of bullshit science. Travel in time is a more serious theory than nuclear stuff destroying the planet.