637
Nuclear fusion reaction releases almost twice the energy put in (www.newscientist.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
344 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

So that's a wall of text, with all the same standard counter points that is always made, some of which I disagree with, so I'll just say I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm just anti-nuclear in its current design form.

You give me a design that can protect the environment from catastrophic effects and with a waste product that can be safely handled, and I'll get on board.

I had read there is some salt based designs kicking around that seem to start going in that direction, but I don't know if they've been moved forward or not.

Fukushima held up to an enormous earthquake followed by several tsunamis; that’s despite the poor operation of the plant.

Actually it wasn't so much the poor operation of the plant, but the failure of the design of the plant to not take into account that after a major earthquake the elevation of the land that the plant sits on would go down, which makes the wall they put up the protect the plant from the ocean (especially after a tsunami) shorter than it should have been.

Nuclear isn’t actually as complicated nor unpredictable as you’d think.

I'm actually quite informed on the subject.

without fear mongering.

Someone disagreeing with you is not fear-mongering.

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

    Generally when a fact is established it does become the "standard counterpoints" people use.

    You personally said "Nuclear waste is scary" - that's why I said people fearmonger. If you're informed you'd actually understand it's a very safe form of waste

    Also you said it wasn't due to poor operation, but then state an example of a plant being poorly operated. If those were obvious and established problems that they already should have been able to account for, then someone dicked it up. Nuclear is only dangerous when it's irresponsibly used. We already have accounted for the mayor pitfalls. It's not worth saying it's dangerous, bad for the environment, or scary in terms of waste.

    Nuclear energy isn't some half theory or some risky experiment, it's pretty well established and understood at this point.

    I also said people in general shouldn't be so politically involved when they're not informed, I actually said that because I shared and hoped you would be able to agree on that. I wasn't demeaning you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    You personally said “Nuclear waste is scary” - that’s why I said people fearmonger.

    The point I was trying to make was that the plants operation was one risk, while it's waste output was a second risk.

    That wasn't fear-mongering, that was stating facts.

    But to be blunt, if an area is destroyed because of nuclear waste then that is kind of scary, a land that can't be lived in anymore (or for a very long time) it's something right out of a fiction story (Mordor-ish).

    Expressing that is not fear mongering, its a real possibility, we see that today around nuclear reactors that have catastrophically failed. We humans rarely 'salt the Earth' so we can't live in a place anymore, it's anathema to what we believe in.

    Nuclear is only dangerous when it’s irresponsibly used.

    Which always happens sooner or later because human beings are involved. The current designs can't cope for humans being humans (especially for those who love profits) and their flaws are exaggerated to catastrophic proportions.

    I also said people in general shouldn’t be so politically involved when they’re not informed, I actually said that because I shared and hoped you would be able to agree on that. I wasn’t demeaning you.

    Well since you were replying to me directly in an argumentative tone, I could only assume that point was directed at me. And that statement is that I'm commenting uninformed, which is not correct, and hence why I pushed back.

    What I do usually to avoid that misunderstanding is that I explicitly state something along the lines of "not you directly, but generally" when I'm trying to make a general comment in response to a specific individual.

    I do appreciate you clarifying, and hope that was an honest clarification, and not just trying to avoid the pushback of the criticism that was initially correct.

    And finally, I do agree, people should be informed when they comment, but as long as they're not being obstructive there's nothing wrong with also just expressing oneself to others, your fears and hopes, without knowing all the facts. This is supposed to be a conversation, and people can learn new facts while the conversation is happening, versus having to know everything before they enter the conversation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent