• Broken_Monitor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Man thats fucking vague click bait headline. What isotope? How much activity? What was in the water? Nah lets not talk relevant details, lets just spread uninformed fear of the nuclear industry instead.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      The clean-up operation is expected to take decades, with the most dangerous part — removing radioactive fuel and rubble from three stricken reactors — yet to begin.

      Nothing to see here, people. We have everything under control. Like, we totally know what we’re doing.

        • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tell that to the tens of thousands of people that were displaced. And the alternative to nukes is obviously not fossil fuels but renewable energy.

            • dalekcaan@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nuclear power as seen by someone who has no idea what nuclear power is.

              • leaskovski@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I know what nuclear power is, I’m just confused as to why someone would use the word nukes, which is clearly associated with the ammunitions.

                Nuclear power has its place in the energy generation system alongside natural energy sources.

                • dalekcaan@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sorry if I was vague, I meant the person you were replying to doesn’t know what nuclear power is, which is why they use a fear mongering term like “nukes” to describe nuclear power.

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Your house is on fire, but the good news is I just saved a lot of money on my car insurance.

          The lesser of 2 evils is not a compelling argument for energy consumption when the Earth is dying.

          • Apollo
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is a piss poor take.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, you’re right. It’s not that they’re trying to be careful and prevent more damage, it’s going to take that long because they’re stupid. /s

        • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nobody knows how long they’re going to take because they still don’t have a fucking clue about how they’re going to do it. I’m not blaming the people working on this stuff, my point is that this technology is still uncontrollable despite what all the apologists keep trying to tell us.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      While you’re right about the nitty gritty specifics of the case, the nuclear industry needs no help spreading fear of itself. Fukushima happened 13 years ago. Not exactly ancient history. Worst nuclear disaster of all time.

      • felykiosa
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Worst” you just forgot Chernobyl and Maya but ok

        • CoriolisSTORM88@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          For those of you who were confused by Maya, like me, it is the Mayak or Kyshtyn accident.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

          That being said, I don’t think the nuclear industry of today should be hamstrung by Soviet incompetence and corruption from the 1950s. I mean these guys at this location were running open loop cooling circuits into the lake and river. We know better than this nowadays.

      • Scubus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And has since been learned from. That reactor design is no longer used, specifically because of that. It would take more than just negligence to get a modern reactor to fail. Spreading fear of nuclear benefits no one and harms everyone.

      • Rooskie91@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, Fukushima was almost as bad as climate change! Good thing we phased out nuclear to focus on fossil fuels!

        • felykiosa
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Never said that I m actually pro nuclear but I had to say that Fukushima wasn’t the worst nuclear accident