• dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the radiation levels are truly negligible then the media shares blame for getting people upset over it.

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      88
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oil companies are ultimately to blame. After all, it was the Rockefeller Foundation who did the early radiation studies in the 50s, and then blatantly lied about the results to make radiation sound super scary. They claimed that there was no safe dose of radiation, and that any exposure, no matter how small, led to a direct, linear, increase in cancer risk.

      And then the oil companies funded politicians who declared education to be the enemy, so now Americans don’t know enough physics to know that every day, they are swimming in safe doses of ionizing radiation. That ocean water has millions of tons of natural uranium oxide dissolved in it.

      US nuclear policy has been based off of these lies, it’s part of why nuclear power is so expensive.

      Those same oil companies actually paid to found Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to specifically advocate against nuclear power, by spreading fear and lies about how nuclear physics work.

      The Rockefeller foundation still funds Greenpeace, and still requires that Greenpeace be anti-nuclear to receive that funding. All while being heavily invested in oil.

      • 30mag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oil companies are ultimately to blame.

        The all-powerful oil companies couldn’t kill nuclear powered submarines or nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Why is that?

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because those are Military. They need to work and not be dependent on a few multi-national companies for fuel.

          Besides, those things are designed by people who actually know nuclear physics, and are not hamstrung by review boards and astroturf protest movements.

          • 30mag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because those are Military. They need to work and not be dependent on a few multi-national companies for fuel.

            Well, I’ve got some bad news about every single military vehicle with wheels or tracks and military airplane the United States operates.

            those things are designed by people who actually know nuclear physics

            I think they usually consult some people who know nuclear physics when they build nuclear power plants.

            • chaogomu@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, oil is a massive issue for world militaries. You just figured that part out?

              Also, you missed part of the sentence;

              not hamstrung by review boards and astroturf protest movements.

      • cloud@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        53
        ·
        1 year ago

        Greenpeace has been boycotting oil companies before you were even born. Nuclear isn’t green and neither is oil. Don’t spread misinformation

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          And also accepting oil money to fight against nuclear power. They were literally founded to spread the lie that nuclear isn’t green.

          Hell, you can look it up for yourself, they still take money from the Rockefeller Foundation.

          They have never been as blatantly owned by oil money as Friends of the Earth, which was founded by a man who hated nuclear much more than he hated oil company money.

          The current Rockefeller Foundation pretends to care about the environment. They even (partially) divested from oil company stocks a couple years ago.

                • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Just because something is non-renewable does not mean it is non-sustainable, just like how something being renewable does not mean it is sustainable.

                  Hydro (or tidal barrage) power is an example of a renewable energy source, but it restricts river flow such that life can’t exist as it naturally has for eons, like fish swimming up/down river, etc., or restricts the flow of minerals and nutrients that feed various niches of river or inlet biodiversity. Those effects on a local ecosystem can lead to other species collapsing elsewhere, which can impact other species, including humans.

                  Coal power is an example of a non-renewable resource as it depends on minerals that form at much slower rates than on the sorts of time scales humans use those minerals. Coal also leads to deaths of many humans and other species not only in the mining of resources (mine collapses, tailing pond ruptures, lung diseases, etc.), but also in the burning of the minerals via the release of radiation and other particulates that can impact local communities.

                  Nuclear is, imo, the best non-renewable source we can exercise for human purposes, so we should still pursue it.

                  • cloud@lazysoci.al
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    19
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s still non-renewable and not green, only idiots would purse that when you have better alternatives available

            • Signtist@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              29
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Bud, that link specifically lists nuclear energy as being sustainable and green. Did you not understand that, or were you just hoping nobody would actually click on the link?

                • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  From the link

                  The role of non-renewable energy sources in sustainable energy has been controversial. Nuclear power is a low-carbon source whose historic mortality rates are comparable to those of wind and solar, but its sustainability has been debated because of concerns about radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation, and accidents.

                  They’re literally explaining to you why the contraversy even exists, which is oil propaganda.

                  Nuclear is green. It’s emissions are almost zero greenhouse gases and won’t contribute to global warming.

        • elscallr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nuclear energy is the closest thing we’ve got to green energy that we’re going to get for the foreseeable future. Anyone opposing it is an idiot.