Science Memes

11414 readers

2044 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

351

TURKEY POWER (mander.xyz)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

102 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] stephen01king 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

How many people has all the waste we've produced kill up to now?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

Quite a few (if you remember not even a fraction oft its life time is over by now)

Also: radiation doesn't kill right away. Often you live 10 more years with weird symptoms and die from something like heart attack, so your death isn't counted as "caused by radiation exposure" but as "died from cancer" or "heart attack"

[–] stephen01king 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, radiation can kill people decades later, but so does pollution from burning fossil fuel. BTW, your link talks about nuclear accidents, not the number of people killed by nuclear wastes produced normally, which is what you claimed is killing people. A bit of a misdirection on your part, isn't it?

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

No one is arguing for fossils lol That's a strawman

And yes, I just gave you the first link I found, point given, but you wouldn't argue that nuclear waste is safe to be around would you?

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

It's not a strawman. It is 100% completely comparable to your point. You're over here using deaths as a point against a technology when the current de facto standard society runs on us unimaginably worse.

But keep handwaving and calling actual legitimate arguments against what you're saying, "Strawmen." It's great and doesn't stifle healthy discussions in any way.

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

Dude, its a strawman because im not arguing pro fossil but pro solar, Wind, Walter and economical and social change.

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

To be arguing pro solar, wind, water, and social and economic change, you would have had to have mentioned them. The only things you said were isolated anti nuclear rhetoric, lol. Ultimately, I agree with you, but read back through the comment thread, perhaps.

tl;dr - It was not a strawman, but opposition to your comments as existing in a vacuum.

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

Its like saying electric cars are good for the environment just because benzin cars are worse. Its not true. Both are bad for the environment.

The nuclear waste is a fucking problem, no matter if burning coal also is a fucking problem

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

Speaking of strawmen, no one said nuclear energy is good for the environment. Nice job using exactly what you accuse others of doing, though. Spot on projection.