• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • For people genuinely interested in the nuclear industry, only listening to the cheerleaders and Dunning-Kruger advocates is a bad idea.

    Go look at nuclear from extraction of materials, to refining of materials, plant risks and histories of disasters, waste and waste management issues,extraction. (ie There are superfunds sites in Washington state still being cleaned up from WWII bombing materials exteaction.)

    Pro nuke shills normally like to just cherry pick a slice of the nuclear energy life cycle to fit confirmation bias and or intentionally do it in bad faith.

    Yes Nuclear has a LOT of positive potential, but it’s also got significantly higher risks (many magnitudes larger) as the history of disasters, exteaction, and waste management will show you.

    This article like a lot of the comments are just pro nuke propaganda. None of these guys have empirical studies on the propagation rate of contamination through the food web for constant regular radioactive dumping. They don’t have exhaustive studies on all the vectors by which the contaminates enter the food chain. There has not been nearly enough time since they started dumping to make the assertions being made here, and NO–64 fish is not a large enough sample size… and on and on.

    What you’re reading here is wishful thinking and either inentional lies, or people who think they know more than they do demonstrating Dunning-Kruger.





  • Here comes the chorus of people who know nothing about how AI/machinelearning/generative models work.

    The problem is capitalism. There are no safe jobs, and we need a UBI and shouldn’t have to work with AI productivity gains.

    The bitching about ai and stupid statements from those ignorant to how it works are all out of a fear of lost income which is a fear instilled by zero sum capitalism.

    Build guillotines, make all productivity gains from AI 100% taxed, and relax.






  • And yet there are no studies of the time it takes to have radiation propagate through this specific ecosystem and a comprehensive accounting of it’s potential downstream impacts and vectors. Thus making an early propoganda piece that imparts a false sense of safety, dangerous and irresponsible reporting.

    Additionally the assumption that the release of radioactive material will be a constant and consistent rate and not vary or get significantly worse is just that–an assumption.

    If you think the science on fukishma and releasing radioactive water into the ocean there is done and settled and everything is fine… No radiation in fish… Then brother do I have a deal on a slightly used bridge that you cannot afford to miss!