• someguy3
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I’ve had too many mind numbing conversations and I think many are afraid because it can’t be literally 10,000% safe. That somewhere, somehow, somewhat, anything, possibly, could, maybe, anything built by man may fail. Therefore!1!1

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      Exactly, with this type of playing into fears NOTHING is safe enough to rely on. Come the fuck on

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        8 months ago

        One thing I’ve found helpful is to shift the conversation to how unsafe coal, oil, and LNG reactors are.

        Nuclear tends to be “Go big or go home” fears but regular power generation is also quite dangerous… I.e. oil trains derailing and constant toxic exposure.

        • saigot
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          8 months ago

          Coal plants produce a lot more radiation than nuclear has.

        • Fades@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes you’re absolutely right, it’s just an uphill battle as you are aware no doubt. Thank you out of control corporate precedence and greed, so much propaganda and corruption

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yea, those people we can convince. Especially if we’re talking fail safe reactor designs like Thorium MSR. Nuclear technology is way beyond what it was in the 70s when most existing reactors were commissioned.

      • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’ve yet to see someone who thinks they will meltdown. Most people I’ve spoke too do not think that any agency can be responsible for a toxic material warehousing for the next how ever many centuries. Its not like this stuff generates any profits just sitting there.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Nuclear waste is a problem we’ve got some good headway on. Our current reactors suck, but there are reactor designs to allow fuel reenrichment and some reactor models that consume waste and exhaust it to the point of being essentially safe to handle. In the grand scheme of things consumer reactor waste isn’t a serious problem… most of the awful waste issues come from military reactors like those on aircraft carriers and submarines.

      • someguy3
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t think you can. You tell them that and it’s always the same “somewhere, somehow, something, …”. That’s why it’s mindnumbing.

    • baconisaveg
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      How many of that 55% want the plant to be within 50km’s of them though? I’m guessing that number is a lot lower.

      • someguy3
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Much rather that than a coal plant within 50 km.