97
Radioactivity detected in Fukushima worker's nose (www.japantimes.co.jp)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 114 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -43 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Still safer than fossil fuels.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The Three Gorges dam displaced an approximate 1.3 million people, is of questionable structural integrity because of rushed construction, has had a huge impact on its immediate environment and in the event of a breach endangers 400 million people. While that monstrosity is an outlier, in most instances the construction of a dam will displace a lot of people and carries a sizable risk of breach if the construction isn't carried out properly. Should or shouldn't hydroelectric be considered environmentally friendly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hydro is the 70s idea of green.

    See how people usually only talk about wind/solar rather than suggest building more dams?

    If anything places are starting to dismantle dams to restore ecosystems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Wind and solar have relatively short material lifespans that are expensive or impossible to recycle. It's all a double edged sword. There is no single solution that will work everywhere on this planet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nukes? I'm sorry, but what?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -27 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -19 points 2 years ago

    It's more than apologists. For a number of years now, across most social networks, the nuclear lobby has planted astroturfers. You can't get humans to agree on shit, yet anyone touting nuclear power as the savior of humanity in the face of climate change is a transparently obvious corpo plant with all of the same talking points as each other. It was just a matter of time before the propaganda took organic roots in real people.

    Let's never explore wind/solar/hydro power. Only nuclear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -48 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "Worst" you just forgot Chernobyl and Maya but ok

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent