Apparently they had fines before, are facing increased gun violence and thus increased the punishment.

see fay, michael and singapore.

I almost forgot that asshole. No one outside the US thought the intervention was warranted. Case in point: the Swiss vandal in 2010

Or just serve alcohol to people of legal drinking age (in your country) along with the Kinder eggs.

TheControlled@lemmy.world (Nomen est omen?) removed any doubt you might have had about his character with this last comment.

He’s also the type of person who hears a radio alert about a wrong way driver on the Autobahn and thinks “One? There are thousands (and all of them are racists)!”

I, as a German, once asked Syrian and Turkish friends on their opinion on Jews. Their answer “The only thing Hitler did wrong was not finishing the job.” sure surprised me as did other really shitty experiences with non-friends from the same Region.

Do I hate Syrians and Turks now? No, because I’m not a fucking asshole that generalizes whole groups of people.

Bummer, your straw man didn’t work.

You were done for before you started. Your sole way of ‘winning’ for your precious, precious nuclear fission is bringing up fossil fuels to steer the discussion away from renewables.

You’ve proven again and again that you only read headlines that you understand only partially. Your impotent ranting against ‘my definition’ of toxicity was especially entertaining.

The constant bad of your person culminates in claiming that I said that fissionable material good for only a short time which is a short 230 years. I did not. You constantly misinterpret and misrepresent facts. This can’t be blamed on your reading capabilities alone.

Again. At present consumption level fissionable material lasts about 230 years. That’s a massive amount of time and would make fission an option as risks and cost involved are outweighed by the benefits.

Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10. Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:

230/10=23; 230/20=11,5

Result: fissionable material lasts 11,5 to 23 your if we followed your masters’ advice. Is very simple maths I’m sure you can follow.

I could now try to explain as to how long it takes to get a reactor on the net and how it would be active to short to make a dent. You’ll either not understand it or misquote it again.

Next you again throw another bunch of shit on the wall: technology we don’t have yet (fusion, thorium, etc). We might be able to build reactors using that hopefully within the next decade. Right know we don’t and we don’t know when we can. Shit didn’t stick, sorry.

Does the fission lobby pay you well for your service?

Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.

So If you buy a used car you only use the sales guys expertise as he knows the car best and don’t bother asking an independent mechanic? Got ya, bless your heart.

… Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.

No, it’s just a couple of statistics. It’s better than the other piece but that’s a low bar.

Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.

… did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.

Natural occuring radiation exists elsewhere as well. Intensity and containment are pretty important. You didn’t bring anything to the table.

Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.

You have literally no idea what you are talking about. Never heard of underground aquifers for instance?

Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.

Straw man again, really?

This article is by psychologists. Relevance?

This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.

I’m only interested in factual evidence. You tend to only read headlines and that only partially while again peddling the fossil straw man.

PS: Oh right, almost forgot.

No, you tried to hide the iceberg. Didn’t work. How obviously bad faith are you trying to be?

At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years.

I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don’t want to start another long discussion.

Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.

ITT the church of nuclear energy strikes again.

Let’s skip renewables, pretend there’s enough fissionable material and start a straw man discussion about coal my brothers in nuclear. Atom.

Nuclear just means massive potential radioactive pollution as there is no secure storage for the radioactive waste. You are now going to claim there is proven safe storage, there just a couple of mishaps really.

Also, more importantly, there isn’t even enough fission material to sustain demand for significant time if Germany and others were to switch. But sure lets’s just skip and ignore renewables. Renewables pollute so much.

2 x No it isn’t. I know you love your precious precious nuclear to death and back and you really really need to discuss coal to better shill for it. Nobody cares about your religion and your straw man.

Finally we reached the stage of you throwing shit on the wall in the hope something sticks.

arxiv.org 1810.02865

Published by team working for Bangladeshi Nuclear energy providers and reads a bit like a promotion piece. It is cited nowhere but I’m sure their employer/customer was happy.

pubs.geoscienceworld.org/..../Natural-fission-reactors-of-Oklo

Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.

www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/20/7804

Way better than your 1st article but still drives on assumed probabilities.

Safe? No, it isn’t.

www.science.org/d … /science.254.5038.1603

This article is by psychologists. Relevance?

Assuming you did some research on this (who am I kidding though) you should have found at per each article you find that claims storage is safe you’ll find at least 2 incidents disproving that. If you’ll look at the corresponding Wikipedia page you’ll find these are mostly in developed countries or where they can be detected by developed countries. Surely this is just coincidence and not the tip of the proverbial iceberg…

I could drown you with links & articles of better scientific provenience but since that would be pointless I’d like to point out another fact to consider that doesn’t get discussed enough:

At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years. That seems a lot and would buy us and a couple of future generations time. Until you factor in Germany and others stopping all efforts to implement renewables, emerging countries doing the same and also the rising demand for electricity which is estimated to drive up current nuclear energy consumption by 20. Suddenly that lengthy period of 230 years is gone…

Fission and fossile both rely on finite consumables. All energy providers have pollution associated with them. Out of these however only renewable get their energy from the sun which is good for another couple of billion years. So the only option is to go all in on renewables.

Yes, at the very least Germany should have started decades ago but Germans decided they’d like a conservative Government for most of the past 40 years.

It would be of the discussion was nuclear vs coal - which it isn’t.

You’re bringing up the straw man because you want turn away the discussion from renewables.

There’s good discussion to be had on the (complex) situation in Germany but it’s immediately flooded by the nuke-bots.

FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.

Toxicity at least in scientific literature only refers to chemical toxicity. What even would be “physical toxicity”?!

Maybe, just maybe, you should have read the Wikipedia article you linked. Not only did I lift that sentence from there it also explains physical toxicity. Sometimes you should read past the headline.

( Skipping the rest of the BS and jumping to the grand finale.)

Here is a good video why nuclear waste is not the issue people like you make it out to be: https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k

Oh, so you got your PHD from Youtube University^tm - I didn’t know that! My bad, you win!

JK, I like to get my info from different sources including but not limited to actual professors of physics (e.g. Harald Lesch) and they don’t agree with mister Youtube dude.

Nobody brings up coal but nuclear stans and bots. You definitely put your favorite straw man to work.

Thanks for this picture-perfect post of a nuke-stan / nuke-bot

Toxicity I believe is about equal.

I generally try to respect other peoples religion but yours is a threat to the ecosphere. I believe you know your statement is bullshit.

Storage requirements are a bit stricter for nuclear in terms of storage container requirements

People opposed to nuclear know this already but why do you think that is?

Follow up: How long does it need to be safely stored? Please note the number of years.

Humanity is about 300.000 years old, the Pyramids of Gizeh were build about 4600 years ago, the Vandals sacked Rome 1569 years ago, WW2 ended about 80 years ago. Now compare the those times with the time radioactive waste needs to be safely stored (and it definitely isn’t at the moment).

Note: radiation is not toxicity.

FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.

To be fair radioactive toxicity stands a bit out because it is (in your wording) much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more toxic than anything else possibly including ‘forever chemicals’.

Nuclear energy is not cheaper nor safer, you’re just kicking a toxic, radioactive can down the road.

What is the toxicity and half life / storage requirements for each waste type?

Redd… err Lemmy believes in the doctrine of safe, clean, wasteless nuclear. Even if there was waste it is completely harmless, not a big deal, please look the other way. They can be no other God… I mean viable alternative for generating energy. Also, did you know this straw man … I mean coal spreads nuclear isotopes too?

The idiots on here firmly believe that nuclear creates zero waste. In their deranged head there is no nuclear waste that will last for longer than humanity existed.

According to Wikipedia it’s weight:

US regulation FMVSS 208 requires that bags be engineered and calibrated to be able to “save” the life of an unbelted 50th-percentile size and weight “male” dummy.

Assuming the regulation in the EU is similar and given that US average weight/BMI is higher than European average US airbags need to be bigger.