Well, you see, the "Anti Magic Rock" Lobby has immense amount of power because of the money of the still lucrative "burning stuff and pollute everything" business.

Burning down your house doesn't poison people thousands of years later, so it's not a perfect analogy.

Plus we have magic mirrors and magic fans that do the same thing as the magic rocks just way cheaper.

. Don't feed the troll 💩

Funny how nuclear power plants are taboo, but building thousands of nuclear warheads all over the globe is no issue.

You're right to reject the logic behind that because it's nonsense. Its not making sense to them because they still presume some kind of good faith when it come to these sorts of things.

The reason we haven't built more nuclear power stations is because oil, gas and coal companies will make less money, if we build more nuclear power stations.

They have the means, the motive and they have a well recorded history of being that cartoonishly villainous. Nothing else makes sense.

Step 1: Get magic rocks.

Step 2: Now design the rest of the nuclear reactor.

Anon is dumb. Anon forgets the nuclear waste. Anon also forgets that the plants for the magical rocks are extremely expensive. So much that energy won by these rocks is more expensive than wind energy and any other renewable.

I hate this thread.

Paraphrased but this is right.

And the people were taught to talk about the horrible nuclear accidents that killed a few but completely glance over the unimaginable millions perished in the name of oil, mustn't even mention the mass extinction events we launched with oil.

We even spread exaggerated bullshit about radiation mutation (wtf? thats superhero comic books fiction!!) and cancer rates (only one really), ignoring how much overwhelmingly more of the both we get from fossil fuel products.

We are like prehistoric people going extinct bcs of the tales how generations ago someone burned down their house so fire bad. Well, actually not like that - we are taking with us a lot of species & entire ecosystems too.

The problem isn't that they exploded one time. The problem is that that one explosion is still happening and likely will be for quite a while.

On the other hand, modern rock exploding plant designs are so much better that it's very unlikely to repeat itself, so there's that.

That is an extreme over simplification of a very complicated subject, it's never that simple.

Having said that: yeah. It was stupid to stop using nuclear energy

I always wonder where we would actually be at as a civilization if it weren't for fuckass lobbyists and money hoarding greedy assholes. This is a perfect example. If we'd learned from our mistakes and actually improved on nuclear energy there's no telling where we'd be at this point.

One time? Wikipedia says over 100 serious incidents and lists about 30 of them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents&wprov=rarw1

It's fine if you like nuclear, just don't try and claim it was one time. It poses serious risk and should be treated as such.

Not even a joke, that's a very concise way to put the argument.

TBF a nuclear incident is not like burning just one house down. It’s burning down the whole city and making it unusable for a decade or ten.

No it's about nuclear waste and where to store it, it's about how expensive it is to build a nuclear power plant (bc of regulations so they don't goo boom) and it's about how much you have to subsidize it to make the electricity it produces affordable at all. Economically it's just not worth it. Renewables are just WAY cheaper.

Just because burning fossil fuels is bad doesn't magically make nuclear good, or somehow no big deal. The chance for a catastrophic accident mentioned in the meme is only one drawback (which is bad enough--get real, denial is not a strategy here). Just a few other issues:

• the problem of what to do with the waste: no permanent solutions have yet been implemented and we've been using costly-to-maintain "temporary" methods for decades. Not to mention the thermal water pollution to aquatic ecosystems

• the enormously out of proportion up front costs to construct the plants, and higher ongoing operation and maintenance costs due to safety risks in proportion to amount of power generated

• the fact that uranium is also a limited resource that has to be mined like other ores, with all the environmental negatives of that, which then has to go through a lot of processing involving various mechanics and chemicals just to make it usable as fuel.

Anyway I'm not going to try and go into more detail on a forum post, but all this advocacy for a very problematic method of producing power as if it's a simple solution to our problems is kind of irritating. At least I hope the above shows we should stop pretending it's "clean energy". We should be focusing on developing renewable and sustainable energy systems.