>Nuclear energy. >False solution to save the environment. >Evidence is Fukushima. Each and every time!

@TheSpiralPro Fukushima is 100% human error so no, nuclear is safe and should be pursued.

Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island were basically the results of cost-cutting measures and deliberately ignoring safety protocols and experts. Blatant negligence. These were disasters that were warned ab years in advance but they did nothing to address them.

@TheSpiralPro Exactly. So that shouldn’t be used against them. Nuclear Power Plants are safe and should be implemented into our grid.

Keep in mind that more nuclear radiation and waste is produced by fossil fuels but that waste is just put in the local drinking supply while nuclear waste is immediately sealed away in a sarcophagus and recyclable. Nuclear disasters have also ironically lead to nature and…

Wildlife reclaiming all that land in the absence of humans, which cannot be said for fossil fuel related disasters, which have caused devastating ecological disasters and have made many places uninhabitable and actively still kill thousands of people a week.

France is ran almost entirely on nuclear power, o major incidents whatsoever, because they don’t underfund/mismanage their plants

Ontario, as well.

@TheSpiralPro Feel required to note that the unlike everything else in the image, there are literally no cons or excuses tied to the GMO part. Its more food for less cost on less land. Fear of GMOs and exaggerated criticism of nuclear go hand-in-hand with anti-scientific beliefs

To be fair, capitalism corrupted GMOs to be evil because and companies like Monsanto have patented and copyrighted their GMOs and created special crops that harm non-Monsanto equivalent crops to force farmers to only buy their patented and copyrighted GMO seeds. It’s corruption.

Heard that before, and i get it. Thats an issue with intellectual property over experimental techniques/DNA, which is entirely its own issue, sadly

I agree. I'm just explaining one of the root causes for the distrust.

Fukashima: designed for earthquake and tsunami. Hit with both, tsunami wall wasn't tall enough. Chernobyl: poor quality materials and poor maintenance. Nuclear: when done right, clean, efficient and safe as shit.

Fukushima got messed up bc they put the backup generators in the basement where they got flooded.

@TheSpiralPro That's also accurate The floodwall wasn't tall enough so everything was flooded and the backup gennies were killed.

It seems nuclear is getting more and more support, which is good, atleast in the US it has bipartisan support

It’s bc after decades of anti-nuclear activism has lead to plants closing, only leading to the reopening of coal and gas plants, environmental scientists have put their foot on the ground and have become adamant that we will not solve climate change without nuclear.

@TheSpiralPro Nuclear isn't always the solution but it does fill the gaps where you need a lot of energy on not a lot of land

Nuclear power is literally how Ontario is 90% Green. Nuclear isn't the end all be all but it & hydro in combination are of absolute necessity in wrt providing firm power that keeps the grid in sync and covers deficits and inefficiencies. Otherwise, fossil fuels would cover those.

@TheSpiralPro @Skeleman71 Nuclear energy was 100% the right choice in the past, but now it's very slow to expand. It has to run for decades to realise a cost benefit over other green energies, but is increasingly losing out even long-term. Nuclear will remain a niche role in our current transition.

@Skeleman71 Renewables have inefficiencies that actually both make it just as expenses as nuclear but also requires firm power to sync the grid & deal with deficits. If not nuclear, those firm sources will be fossil fuels. Nuclear also makes renewables cheaper by covering its inefficiencies.

@Skeleman71 Highly recommend this video by Kyle Hill. He pretty much breaks this down in more detail

Communist not knowing how to boil water without killing thousands of people has personally affected my life.

@TheSpiralPro I’m going to be that one guy to ask: Where did you find the video? I know you added in the text, but where can I find it myself?

That's a meme I had saved up for like 5 years now lmao. It has been so long that I don't even remember where I got the meme from but I do know that the animation it came from is called "A Tale of Momentum & Inertia"

@TheSpiralPro Hey man, don't you know about Three Mile Island? The crisis so bad that most Pennsylvanias don't even realize that it happened in our own state?

@TheSpiralPro Using Fukushima as an argument against it is always funny, because even ignoring the obvious safety measures that were ignored, as far as I remember there was no long damage caused by the incident. It leaked out into the ocean, but the ocean is huge and diluted it harmlessly.

@agermandergenn It’s like they are completely blind to nuclear fusion and only think fission exists

@TheSpiralPro Fukashima is when transporting the people far away from thier homes (causing alot of mental trauma) killed more poeple than o from radiation sickness cause by the plant itself. These poeple are getting fooled by media hype that the trilogy would be as good as the goat-

@TheSpiralPro The Fukushima nuclear disaster was caused by negligence and natural disaster. A 9.1 megathrust undersea quake caused a tsunami that they failed to plan for as well as known lapses in safety and oversight. You shouldn't make blanket statements.

@TheSpiralPro Your example of Fukushima is wild. It took an earthquake and a tsunami to disrupt the plant. The bigger issue wasn't the plant, it was the Japanese gov't response to it. By this logic we should have stopped using any and all gasoline back when the Exxon Valdez spilled.

@TheSpiralPro Why is this literally the most perfect meme holy shit.

@TheSpiralPro the evidence is that this happens when you let arrogant idiots do things is not nuclear energy fault

@TheSpiralPro Fukushima and Chernobyl are the result of blatant negligence and cost cutting, also they were older nuclear plants, newer ones are so much safer you need to actively cause problems to make it happen. Hell, Fukushima happened partly because of a NATURAL DISASTER.

@TheSpiralPro I prefer an all of the above, but a little bit of nuclear should always be in the mix, just don't put it on a freaking fault line, or not have a proper containment building or something.

I hope it is fair to assume you are a reasonable person such that you would be interested to find out how recent research has shown that anti-nuclear narratives based on claims of excessive radiological risk are effectively founded on social myths, here is the paper: Hayes, R.B. Cleaner Energy Systems Vol 2, July 2022, 100009 Nuclear energy myths versus facts support its expanded use - a review

@TheSpiralPro I love nuclear because it creates jobs for me. But "if something goes wrong, everything within a 100 mile radius will become uninhabitable for a minimum of 100 years" is a valid argument compared to "in 100 years global temps will rise by 5 degrees if we use coal"

Fukushima was built in the 70s to begin with. Also, it was hit by something that is extreme rare occurence No one expected an earthquake and tsunami. It was the 14m high tsunami wave that led to the power loss and fail of isolation condenser

One of the issues with nuclear power that nobody ever seems mention is the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste.

@TheSpiralPro Bro is más that he would have to wear the same hoodie for more than 2 times. (First Worlders had their Brain unfixable fried).

>evidence is decades ago preventable disasters, preventable through just keeping properly staffed and following safety protocols > > > common person still thinks it's too risky because they can't comprehend responsibility

@TheSpiralPro

@TheSpiralPro New technology solves any danger of meltdown. Thorium molten salt reactors fail safe and can burn the dangerous waste from other reactors as fuel, making them safer.

nuclear would have been a great solution 30 years ago when we had time to build the reactos, we really got fucked by anti nuclear propaganda atp we gotta bet the farm on renewables and moving to mass transit and away from cars and disaster mitigation its too late to stop it

Fukushima... I can ask were its located? And who Is managyn it? Meaby a country with a lot of red in the flag like the same one who Made the same in Chernóbil decades ago. No?

Fukushima was Japan. It was a result of a tsunami hitting it and flooding the basement where the backup generators are; a safety flaw that had been warned about for years at that point. Negligence, basically.

I'm on board with nuclear power. The only concern I have is what we'll we do with the waste and or byproducts.

Nuclear waste is immediately sealed away in a sarcophagus and most of it is reusable. Unlike coal and gas, which in fact produce more nuclear waste than nuclear power plants do and that waste is just dumped in the local drinking supply.

@TheSpiralPro Yeah, most, if not all, infamous cases of nuclear meltdowns were down to gross incompetence rather than the technology itself being bad.

Nuclear power is no longer the future; it’s the present. Get exposure to cutting-edge nuclear companies poised to lead the charge in safe, efficient, and low-carbon energy production. Consider $NUKZ for your gateway to sustainable energy investments.