988
Anon questions our energy sector (slrpnk.net)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
382 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Who's pretending they're safe? The only pretending I see in the meme is about nuclear. But if you want to argue with something I didn't say, have at it I guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    You can't call nuclear dangerous when it's literally safer than many other energy sources. It's like calling Caffeine dangerous when meth exists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Caffeine is dangerous and can kill humans in large doses AND meth exists. It's not one or the other, genius. Please mainline some caffeine to prove your point. Meth exists, you'll be fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yes it can. Pretending it's that dangerous in doses normally consumed by humans in say coffee would be silly though and that's exactly what you are doing. Like you could make a dirty bomb from spent fuel rods, but that's irresponsible. You could build outdated and unsafe reactors, but again that's irresponsible. You could also burn people to death using the power of the sun and some mirrors. Do you get my point?

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

    doses normally consumed

    So we can just put an much caffeine into a person as we want because it's ok in normal dosages? That's wrong. Your analogy sucks. You can't discount danger because of normal conditions. Tsunamis weren't normal for Fukushima. Do you understand?

    Do we get to ignore things that get labeled irresponsible? Plus, if there's been a hundred incidents, that pretty much says we aren't and cannot be responsible enough to prevent them.

    Your points aren't worth arguing further. I will not be engaging anymore. Feel free to continue to think that your analogies are clever; I will not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    How many of those incidents killed anyone? It's the same with aviation, lots of incidents but few are actually fatal. We still fly everyday.

    You can argue all you want but unless you have something that's actually significantly safer then what are you going to do?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent