Message from @killsode-slugcat
Discord ID: 660481084076720129
pretty much the only one that WAS the reactor was chernobyl
1 person has died from fukushima (radiation) ~2000 died because of government policy and fear of radiation psycological stress etc.
everything else has been onsite chemicals
The waste is only waste if you do not use it.
depleted uranium is used quite frequently for its high mass
also thorium reactors need plutonium to hold the reaction iirc
*the plutonium isnt really consumed though*
"The waste is only waste if you do not use it."
Waste is just underutilised resources Hahaha
So true @ᚠᚢᛖᛚᛖᛞᛒᚣᚳᚨᚿᚳᛖᚱ
when it comes to nuclear is it soo goddamn true but every goddamn time anyone mentions it you hear "i habe de cancer from radiation boss"; when you could use them for medicine let it rest for a while or put it into another reactor.
Environmental activists: Muh climate
also environmental activists: Ruin entire ecosystems with hydroelectric dams, solar and wind farms.
most climate activists these days are just using it a vehicle for communism
*no shit*
bunch of climate activists arent logical anyway
pretty much all of the politics with climate change is bollocks, left or right
funnily, the first politician to bring up climate change as an issue was the iron lady her self, margret thatcher
btw, in australia we tried a carbon tax... *it actually worked well*
because many companies did the smart thing and just became a bit more efficient
putting thermal skirting on fridges in grocery stores and such
its like leaving your fridge open all the time
the money from the carbon tax was then used a taxcut for consumers, and to subsidise solar implementation
*the issue of the sun not shining in australia is pretty much not a thing*
our skies are cloudy like 2-3 months of the year
*if that*
the carbon tax was then abolished by the next people that came into power for literally *just* political reasons
Issue a carbon tax and build nuclear powerplants
Evidence based policies should take priority
lmao, if we had evidence based politics everything would be better
problem is people pick their "evidence"
People are faggots.
What do you mean by "evidence based policy"?
If there is "evidence" that gun restrictions reduce gun related crimes, that still wouldn't be a justification to take away inalienable rights
Similarly, if there is "evidence" that lax immigration policies lead to economic development, that wouldn't justify sacrificing the sovereignty of a Nation
Politics has a lot of dimensions than just "evidence" for a single factor
it can also find evidence to contradict that
the amount of crimes stopped by armed citizens would probably outweigh the gains
You're missing the point
*yes, but its also a nitpick*
Gun rights are NOT predicated on that evidence of "probably outweighing the gains"
They are inalienable rights, based on philosophy
Not empirical evidence