Astrealix @ Astrealix @lemmy.world

Hong Konger NYU student | he/him

---

Read more

Posts

10

Comments

168

Joined

2 yr. ago

Have you tried capturing gas? As difficult as radioactive waste tombs are, they're easier than containing a specific type of air lol.

The deaths came from the, again, once-in-a-century earthquake. Evacuations, yes. Deaths, no.

"Nobody died as a direct result of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. However, in 2018 one worker in charge of measuring radiation at the plant died of lung cancer caused by radiation exposure." — Encyclopedia Britannica. (https://www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident)

By not picking, you are picking fossil fuels. Because we can't fully replace everything with solar/wind yet, and fossil fuels are already being burned as we speak.

I mean, if we want to go down that path, there's no reason to think that governments won't just stick to fossil fuels and fuck us all.

Even so, it took a literal once-in-a-century earthquake in the right place to send a tsunami to the perfectly misplaced reactor to actually make just one person die. One. And two died from the aforementioned massive tsunami caused by an earthquake that occurs around once a century.

And yet nuclear has killed less than even wind. Obviously death is not the only factor, which is why it should be a combination of both.

Again, it's just an example. There are loads of situations where solar and wind just don't work — and they are both inconsistent, without battery technology nearly good enough to work on the order of days for an entire national grid, which could be potentially needed in the event of a storm.

Nuclear waste is a problem, but one which is much more easily contained and much less dangerous than the CO2 that's constantly being spewed into our air.

How many 9.1 magnitude earthquakes do you think there are? And the reports following the disaster showed that there were definitely ways to prevent it from happening, like, for example, not building it so close to the sea.

Which each have their drawbacks. Just as an example, though not representative of the majority, what do you do about months of no sun in the Arctic Circle for solar power? There is no single solution to this problem. Nuclear is better than fossil fuels by far, and we should not just throw it away out of fear.

I know it's a damn lot easier than carbon recapture, if we're talking waste products. It's not ideal, but there is no such thing as perfect, and we shouldn't let that be the enemy of good. Nuclear fission power is part of a large group of methods to help us switch off fossil fuels.

Honestly, if you can, hydro is brilliant. Not many places can though — both because of geography and politics. Nuclear is better than a lot of the alternatives and shouldn't be discounted.

Looks like even this place couldn't keep it up. Unfortunate. Thanks admins for the transparency though.

It's called history, blame the French

Cuz the gram came before the SI system and the kilogram is a much more useable unit. The original m-g-s are based on physical things, like m being a subdivision of the length from the North Pole to the Equator going through Paris, and s being related to the time of a pendulum with certain length swinging or smth

A gram is the weight of 1 mL of water, roughly.

I mean, I'd be very worried if 2023 wasn't smarter than 1970 no matter the location. Between the lead poisoning and the advancements in knowledge and education methods...

As someone who speaks Cantonese, it's more that Cantonese has six tones, rather than similar-sounding vowels. People who don't know how tonal languages work are prone to fucking it up, cuz we have relatively quite a lot amongst the more popular languages. Plus the large number of homophones cuz of the monosyllablism of Chinese languages where each syllable has its own character, you get a lot of context-dependent words. Also makes for some puns, but yeah.

Huge, huge development for both India and humanity. Congratulations.

This somehow looks and feels like Dilbert

Wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese government does it to itself already.

Genuine question: don't the jury need to be unbiased? Presumably already hard enough with someone like trump, but wouldn't a death threat create reasonable concerns about bias against the side that does the threatening?

Even Teddy Roosevelt didn't get it to work.