this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
183 points (93.0% liked)

Uplifting News

14997 readers
823 users here now

Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.

Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 39 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

A lot of comments here are displaying their ignorance of nuclear technology.

Keep eating up the oil company talking points, I guess. "hey guys remember those nuclear meltdowns from outdated reactors that had all kinds of things going wrong because of poor design and decision making, most of which is no longer an issue? Yeah things blow up so better keep chugging away at those fossil fuels while we sabotage any investments into renewables"

I mean goddamn, the "worst" disaster in the USA was a big nothing burger that was sensationalized by newspapers that knew how to sell a headline, and oil companies that knew how to leverage any sort of negative press to their advantage.

When the fallout from nuclear disasters doesn't come close to the amount of radiation out off by burning and refining fossil fuels, there is no argument.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 20 minutes ago

the "worst" disaster in the USA

The 3-Mile Island incident hit two weeks after The China Syndrome hit theaters. (A movie about a runaway nuclear meltdown.)

Otherwise the story would have been, "A tiny poof of radioactive steam got loose, everything was handled quickly and perfectly, no big deal, and back to you Tom (Brokaw).

[–] [email protected] 28 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

Yeah things blow up

I would stop them right there and ask when the last oil spill was.

It was last month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 hours ago

Even without oil spills. The fossil fuel method of dealing with waste is to vent it into the atmosphere. Nuclear only does that when something goes very wrong, and even then it causes significantly fewer fatalities.

You could have a Chernobyl every single day and still kill fewer people than coal and oil.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

Why do you think that those against nuclear energy are for fossil fuels? My building has solar panels, and backup power comes from either wind turbines or the hydraulic dam down the river.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The safety aspects alone SHOULD be enough to convince people, yet here we are.

The difference between nuclear-power- related disasters and fossil fuel related disasters is astronomical.

And honestly the amount of radioactive isotopes that get spewed out from burning coal day in day out for decades on end absolutely dwarfs the amount of radioactivity released from nuclear disasters.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

one dangerous thing being less unsafe than another doesn't make it safe.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

And nobody suggested it did.

But the argument of "it's more unsafe" doesn't apply, that was my whole point.

If one thing is less unsafe than another, why the fuck WOULDN'T you want to switch the the DEMONSTRABLY LESS UNSAFE THING

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

yeah, decentralised photovoltaic- & -thermic cells, wind and river turbines, biomass.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Yep. So much of this shit from "environmental activists" that have no fucking clue how any of this works. It's been shown time and time again that nuclear is the answer for base load energy requirements with minimal environmental impact.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

When and where? Nuclear is very very expensive. Nuclear doesn't work well as baseload since while you can turn it off rather quickly you can't turn it back on fast when it's needed again

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Isn't that the point of baseload? To cover the non-highs, but provide the stable base?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 minutes ago

No, you want the baseload to take over when there isn't enough much cheaper renewable energy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 hours ago

....that's why it would be used as a baseload. I.E. something that you never really turn off because that amount is always required.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Nuclear doesn't work well as baseload since while you can turn it off rather quickly you can't turn it back on fast when it's needed again

Nuclear is best used for baseload, since while you can turn it off rather quickly you can't turn it back on fast when it's needed again

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 minutes ago

You want to turn of your baseload when there is enough cheap wind and solar energy... Like that's the whole point of baseload

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

These are two excellent videos by Kyle Hill, explaining where we are with nuclear power. They're Invidious Links, because I block all trackers from Google, which means youtube doesn't work for me. I put the titles beside the links in-case people want to search them up themselves. The War in Ukraine, The Far-right, the intolerance and the propaganda on social media. It's because they want to push us to war. Electric cars, plus modern nuclear power means the end to the artificial energy crisis. Means the end to Petrostates like Russia, Saudi Arabia and what the US is fast turning into. The fossil fuel industry has suppressed this technology for the last 70 years. That is why they need us at war, because there are no electric tanks. Anyone who is skeptical about nuclear power, I urge you to watch these. I promise you, threatening Denmark over Greenland will make a lot more sense with this context.

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=BcoN2bdACGA Why Isn’t Thorium Changing the World?

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k We Solved Nuclear Waste Decades Ago

[–] [email protected] 2 points 43 minutes ago* (last edited 43 minutes ago)

Thank you for the videos. The links didn't work for me, though, so for anyone else for whom it doesn't work, here are the links:
https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
https://youtu.be/BcoN2bdACGA

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

The fossil fuel industry has been suppressing all alternatives to fossil fuels. They have entire research departments that work on inventing green energy solutions and then they patent them and shelve them.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You lost me at this:

For this transmutation Transmutex proposes using a particle accelerator, probably because the promoter of the idea is a former engineer at CERN,

Yeah it's definitely not that the only reliable method we have of knocking protons off of atoms involves either a nuclear reactor or particle accelerator, dude is just bringing his old job with him cause he doesn't know any better. Right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

No, as non-experts, we must dismiss the knowledge of experts because their approach is not non-magical pseudoscience bullshit that consists mostly of evocative imagery.

I don’t need no boring particle accelerator! I want an atom smasher that’s been combined with cutting edge AI and the latest in superconducting magnet technology to tame matter down to the subatomic level so it can shoot a laser made of protons into radioactive materials to fundamentally alter its elemental properties so it no longer emits ~(as~ ~much)~ radiation!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Is there any source with any real information? This one is just bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Here's a more measured take on it, particularly the Update section - though it's written by the company creating the long-term waste repository in Switzerland so there's some obvious bias.

It appears the modeling/simulation code Transmutex developed is heavily based on the open-source Geant4 toolkit.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Transmutation is not new technology. It has always been too expensive to be used on an industrial level. I dont think that has changed. also by no means does it reduce the cost of dismantling and securing npp sites. Dont be fooled :/

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago

You seem to know stuff.

Why don’t we take “depleted” fuel and use it in a low power atomic power plant? The rest radioactivity can be burned off just like their main radioactivity right?

There should be a solution to burn them further down and generate electricity with it.

Or do they lose the properties to burn them?

Thanks

load more comments
view more: next ›