• Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tell me you know nothing about nuclear science without telling me

          (Simpsons doesn’t count as a credible source)

            • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              And what are those chances may I ask?

              Its like comparing a 1970’s shitbox car to a 2022 model and saying all cars are immediately gonna kill us.

              Really don’t think any nuclear reactor leaks are not accidents, hence why we have such amazing tech to stop it

              • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Chances of a leak are roughly 100%

                Most sites are unusable for a few decades due to tritium leaks.

                Chances of an economy-destroying disaster on the other hand are much lower, but you didn’t ask that.

                • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Odds of a leak are what?? Give me some of whatever youre smoking, unless you mean some backass “technically they leak runoff water” bs, cause reactors are currently the safest way to generate power, even beating the insanely small dangers of solar (which due to production requires more overall human risk)

                  • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Chances of an economy-destroying disaster on the other hand are much lower, but you didn’t ask that.

                    Also now you’re lying again with that second sentence. For no benefit whatsoever, as well. This is also a 100% consistent pattern with nuke shills.