• 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.