• 0 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • That’s because another time traveler was sent by the bad guys to stop him. But then another time traveler was sent to stop that dude. But he tripped up the first time traveler by accident. So the good guys sent another time traveler to stop their own man from messing up the original time traveler. But then the bad guys sent a time traveler, but he failed to materialize. So they tried again, but this dude actually caused the previous dude not to materialize. So they sent another to a more remote location, but his car broke down before he could make it. So they spent a lot of time training someone to fix ancient cars, but then when that dude arrived he nerded out too hard because the car they got was really cool. So they sent another, but this one was stopped by another traveler from the good guys. Turned out these dudes knew each other and played both sides to escape their distopian world and live in the past to grow old together.




  • Just curious, what kind of deadly situation is created when people leave their cars idling for so long?

    I’m the kind of person that turns the car off if there is a train coming and I need to wait 5 minutes. I can’t imagine leaving the car running for more than a couple of minutes.

    I think if the car is turned on with a button and the key is replaced with a card that works at a distance, a feature that turns the car off when sitting idle for a while seems like a sensible thing. It’s way more likely to be on by mistake than left running for a reason.

    But would love to hear what kind of situations there are, I’m just unfamiliar with them.













  • Very well, let’s agree to disagree. Perhaps I am wrong. But I am in no way right wing or spreading misinformation.

    The people I’ve spoken who work in the nuclear field bitch about unneeded red tape all the time. Some of it is important for sure, but a lot of it can be cut if we wanted to without safety becoming an issue. The price of nuclear has gone way up the past 20 years, whilst the knowledge and tools have become better. This makes no sense to me. We should be able to build them cheaper and faster, not slower and more expensive. And there are countries in the world, that can get it done cheaper, so why can’t we?

    I’m all for renewables, I have solar panels. But I’m not 100% convinced we have grid storage figured out. And in the meanwhile we keep burning fossils in huge amounts. If we can have something that produces energy, without fucking up the atmosphere, even at a price that’s more expensive than other sources (within reason) I’m all for that. Because with the price of energy from coal, the money for fixing the atmosphere isn’t included.

    Thank you for answering in a respectful manner.



  • I have never heard being pro-nuclear is the anti science stance and it being on the rise among right wing political parties. All the right wing is talking about it more coal and less things to be done about the climate.

    The people who I talk to who are pro nuclear seem very well informed and not anti science at all.

    I believe nuclear can help us get to the future we want and we should have done it a lot sooner. Nuclear doesn’t mean anti-renewable, both can exist.



  • Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy production. Even with the big accidents, the impact hasn’t been that big.

    Chernobyl was by far the biggest, but that was 40 years ago, in a poorly designed plant, with bad procedures and a chain of human errors. We’ve learned so much from that accident and that type of accident couldn’t even have happened in the plants we had at the time in the west. Actually if the engineers that saw the issue could contact the control room right away, there would not have been any issue. In 1984 that was a problem, in 2024 not so much, we have more communication tools than ever. The impact of Chernobyl was also terrible, but not as bad as feared back in the time. In contrast to the TV series, not a lot of people died in the accident. With 30 deaths directly and another 30 over time. Total impact on health is hard to say and we’ve obviously have had to do a lot to prevent a bigger impact, but the number is in the thousands for total people with health effects. Even the firefighters sent in to fix stuff didn’t die, with most of them living full lives with no health effects. And what people might not know, the Chernobyl plant has had a lot of people working there and producing power for decades after the disaster. It’s far from the nuclear wasteland people imagine.

    Fukushima was pretty bad, but the impact on human life and health has been pretty much nonexistent. The circumstances leading up to the disaster were also very unique. A huge earthquake followed by a big tsunami, combined with a design flaw in the backup power system, combined with human error. I still to this day don’t understand how this lead to facilities being closed in Germany, where big earthquakes don’t happen and there is hardly any coast let alone tsunamis. It’s a knee jerk reaction that makes no sense. Studies have indicated the forced relocation of the people living near there has been a bigger impact on people’s health than anything the power plant did.

    Compare this to things we consider to be totally normal. Like driving a car, which kills more people in a week than ever had any negative impacts from nuclear power.

    Or say solar is a far more safe form of power, even though yearly hundreds of people die because of accidents related to solar installations. Or for example hydroplants, where accidents can also cause a huge death toll and more accidents happen.

    And this is even with the non valid comparison to the current forms of energy where we know it’s a big issue. But because the alternative isn’t perfect, we don’t change over.