Comment on Anon questions our energy sector
zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 4 weeks agoWho’s pretending they’re safe? The only pretending I see in the meme is about nuclear. But if you want to argue with something I didn’t say, have at it I guess.
areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
You can’t call nuclear dangerous when it’s literally safer than many other energy sources. It’s like calling Caffeine dangerous when meth exists.
zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
Caffeine is dangerous and can kill humans in large doses AND meth exists. It’s not one or the other, genius. Please mainline some caffeine to prove your point. Meth exists, you’ll be fine.
areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
Yes it can. Pretending it’s that dangerous in doses normally consumed by humans in say coffee would be silly though and that’s exactly what you are doing. Like you could make a dirty bomb from spent fuel rods, but that’s irresponsible. You could build outdated and unsafe reactors, but again that’s irresponsible. You could also burn people to death using the power of the sun and some mirrors. Do you get my point?
zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
So we can just put an much caffeine into a person as we want because it’s ok in normal dosages? That’s wrong. Your analogy sucks. You can’t discount danger because of normal conditions. Tsunamis weren’t normal for Fukushima. Do you understand?
Do we get to ignore things that get labeled irresponsible? Plus, if there’s been a hundred incidents, that pretty much says we aren’t and cannot be responsible enough to prevent them.
Your points aren’t worth arguing further. I will not be engaging anymore. Feel free to continue to think that your analogies are clever; I will not.