Except the retard didn’t just burn his house down, he burned thousands of people’s houses down in such a way that nobody could ever live there again, and came very close to burning down the whole continent in the same way.
The whole clusterfuck of mishandled Chernobyl cleanup & everything there before and after only claimed a few lives (via direct radiation tissue damage or just accidents).
Compare that with the daily average of thousands of killed in various (ultimately) oil wars.
But we don’t even get news about that.
But western propaganda sure showed us malformed babies & claimed it was from radiation - it turns out it was all bullshit, it was always a toxic chemical behind it (unregulated industries selling toxic shit by the tonnes - fertilisers, paints, even biological warfare).
We just take radiation super seriously and completely disregard toxic chemical pollution of eg industrial spillages. People just get to live in polluted areas and die sooner because of that. Instead of living for longer & with less health hazards but with a little radiation.
And lastly - burning coal released way more radiation into air than nuclear accidents.
While I think most of this is true, I do doubt your claim that Chernobyl didn’t cause birth defects. Even if it didn’t cause defects in humans because they were evacuated, it still caused birth defects in animals that stayed behind. I mean the thing killed a forest. It’s easier to cause mutations than outright kill something - this is especially true in the newly conceived.
Thats the thing, no mutations, not even in mice that live in burrows and have like a generation every two seconds. They even did a DNA study by comparing species to the ones not from that area and found no differences.
But the main thing they looked at is cancer rates/signs (ionising radiation causing random mutations resulting in cancer, not superpowers), thats why the mice focus (but the fauna there is thriving, the biggest are deer).
The radiation causing mutation is very theoretical in the sense that the chances if it happening and leading to problems (and DNA corrective measures) seem to be low in the sense that radiation levels needed for that will sooner cause tissue damages too (which ofc is a thing that happens & kills).
There is still a lot we don’t know bcs there are so few nuclear accidents (and bomb test) sights to study, but the levels how we defined safe is way on the conservative side.
There was never any real risk of ruining an entire continent. Stop watching TV shows like Chernobyl for accurate information. Perhaps some people thought that at the time, but we now know that kind of thing is impossible. It could have been a worse accident for sure if there was another steam explosion and it would have effected a wider area, but not even close to a continent lol.
Or to put it another way, we almost ruined a large swath of land and learned from that mistake, but chose not to use it so when we do have to switch to nukes because destroyed our planet we will have forgotten all those lessons and do it again.
Na it’s dumb. The issue with the magic rocks isn’t the direct consequences like with the fire. The issues with these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.
Yeah, the environmental issues that are orders of magnitude less problematic than literally pumping the toxic chemicals into the atmosphere like with fossil fuels, vs comparatively miniscule amount of solid waste to store inert.
What consequences?
There are no consequences for animals in Chernobyl, they are thriving in all aspects, even mammals living underground (mutations are fiction).
People that didn’t leave the exclusion zone died of old age there.
Life on Earth had to deal with all sorts of radiation.
What caused mass extinction was ecosystem change, eg via global climate change.
Nope, if you bury it in a few inches of concrete it’s literally never a problem again unless society somehow completely collapsed and all knowledge of nuclear waste is lost
I’ve seen this train of thinking somewhere. Spoiler alert, it was a bad idea.
I’ve seen this level of confidence from people who don’t know what they’re talking about before. Spoiler alert, it’s embarrassing for you
I’ve seen this level of confidence from people who don’t know what they’re talking about before. Spoiler alert, it’s embarrassing for you
Ahahahahahah! Oh the irony! Drop the smugness.
Dude, you don’t know as much about nuclear energy as you think. But you know even less about concrete.
if you bury it in a few inches of concrete it’s literally never a problem again
I’m putting this one on Facebook for my civil engineer friends to laugh at. It’s going to be a riot. Concrete is pourous as hell and doesn’t last much on a grand scale. And on top of that you think a few inches is enough? This is nuclear waste, it’s not Emma Dorothy from Sunday school!
Nah, you want to start it when you’re talking out your ass, imma keep it when I’m correcting you.
Dude, you don’t know as much about nuclear energy as you think. But you know even less about concrete.
Oh wow, good scientific counterpoints! If only you could Google it and find out for yourself…
Stop embarrassing yourself
You really should, 5s in Google and I found exactly what I’m talking about:
I simplified with just using “concrete” because “they fill a container with inert gas and pour concrete around it and it’s fine” is easily shortened to “dump concrete around it”
Shit, theres a YouTube video of someone kissing one of those, standing next to it for the whole video, nothing happens at all. You have no idea what you’re talking about
Facebook
Oh, I see I’m dealing with a mental deficient here, I apologize for assuming you were of standard mental functionality
Not even a joke, that’s a very concise way to put the argument.
Except the retard didn’t just burn his house down, he burned thousands of people’s houses down in such a way that nobody could ever live there again, and came very close to burning down the whole continent in the same way.
(I’m still in favour of spicy rock steam)
Isn’t nuclear energy like super safe and have killed incredibly few people compared to all the other energy sources?
Or are you talking about destilling the magic rocks very much and putting them in a bomb?
Exactly.
The whole clusterfuck of mishandled Chernobyl cleanup & everything there before and after only claimed a few lives (via direct radiation tissue damage or just accidents).
Compare that with the daily average of thousands of killed in various (ultimately) oil wars.
But we don’t even get news about that.
But western propaganda sure showed us malformed babies & claimed it was from radiation - it turns out it was all bullshit, it was always a toxic chemical behind it (unregulated industries selling toxic shit by the tonnes - fertilisers, paints, even biological warfare).
We just take radiation super seriously and completely disregard toxic chemical pollution of eg industrial spillages. People just get to live in polluted areas and die sooner because of that. Instead of living for longer & with less health hazards but with a little radiation.
And lastly - burning coal released way more radiation into air than nuclear accidents.
While I think most of this is true, I do doubt your claim that Chernobyl didn’t cause birth defects. Even if it didn’t cause defects in humans because they were evacuated, it still caused birth defects in animals that stayed behind. I mean the thing killed a forest. It’s easier to cause mutations than outright kill something - this is especially true in the newly conceived.
Thats the thing, no mutations, not even in mice that live in burrows and have like a generation every two seconds. They even did a DNA study by comparing species to the ones not from that area and found no differences.
But the main thing they looked at is cancer rates/signs (ionising radiation causing random mutations resulting in cancer, not superpowers), thats why the mice focus (but the fauna there is thriving, the biggest are deer).
The radiation causing mutation is very theoretical in the sense that the chances if it happening and leading to problems (and DNA corrective measures) seem to be low in the sense that radiation levels needed for that will sooner cause tissue damages too (which ofc is a thing that happens & kills).
There is still a lot we don’t know bcs there are so few nuclear accidents (and bomb test) sights to study, but the levels how we defined safe is way on the conservative side.
There was never any real risk of ruining an entire continent. Stop watching TV shows like Chernobyl for accurate information. Perhaps some people thought that at the time, but we now know that kind of thing is impossible. It could have been a worse accident for sure if there was another steam explosion and it would have effected a wider area, but not even close to a continent lol.
Or to put it another way, we almost ruined a large swath of land and learned from that mistake, but chose not to use it so when we do have to switch to nukes because destroyed our planet we will have forgotten all those lessons and do it again.
Na it’s dumb. The issue with the magic rocks isn’t the direct consequences like with the fire. The issues with these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.
Yeah, the environmental issues that are orders of magnitude less problematic than literally pumping the toxic chemicals into the atmosphere like with fossil fuels, vs comparatively miniscule amount of solid waste to store inert.
Coal smoke is more radioactive than the outside of a fission reactor anyhow.
The comparison is dumb. The subject was the comparaison, and not what type of energy is better for the environment.
You’re interpreting.
What consequences?
There are no consequences for animals in Chernobyl, they are thriving in all aspects, even mammals living underground (mutations are fiction).
People that didn’t leave the exclusion zone died of old age there.
Life on Earth had to deal with all sorts of radiation.
What caused mass extinction was ecosystem change, eg via global climate change.
You bury them in concrete, done. Nuclear waste isn’t an issue and hasn’t ever been
Yeah, just bury it and make it someone else’s problem in the future.
I’ve seen this train of thinking somewhere. Spoiler alert, it was a bad idea.
Nope, if you bury it in a few inches of concrete it’s literally never a problem again unless society somehow completely collapsed and all knowledge of nuclear waste is lost
I’ve seen this level of confidence from people who don’t know what they’re talking about before. Spoiler alert, it’s embarrassing for you
Ahahahahahah! Oh the irony! Drop the smugness.
Dude, you don’t know as much about nuclear energy as you think. But you know even less about concrete.
I’m putting this one on Facebook for my civil engineer friends to laugh at. It’s going to be a riot. Concrete is pourous as hell and doesn’t last much on a grand scale. And on top of that you think a few inches is enough? This is nuclear waste, it’s not Emma Dorothy from Sunday school!
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Nah, you want to start it when you’re talking out your ass, imma keep it when I’m correcting you.
Oh wow, good scientific counterpoints! If only you could Google it and find out for yourself…
You really should, 5s in Google and I found exactly what I’m talking about:
I simplified with just using “concrete” because “they fill a container with inert gas and pour concrete around it and it’s fine” is easily shortened to “dump concrete around it”
Shit, theres a YouTube video of someone kissing one of those, standing next to it for the whole video, nothing happens at all. You have no idea what you’re talking about
Oh, I see I’m dealing with a mental deficient here, I apologize for assuming you were of standard mental functionality
Dude, I’m not wasting my time correcting you. You made up your mind, keep the bike.
Rather than learn and admit you were wrong you cower away and pretend it’s because I’m wrong despite literally showing you what I was talking about
Be better