• moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Na it’s dumb. The issue with the magic rocks isn’t the direct consequences like with the fire. The issues with these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Yeah, the environmental issues that are orders of magnitude less problematic than literally pumping the toxic chemicals into the atmosphere like with fossil fuels, vs comparatively miniscule amount of solid waste to store inert.

      • moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The comparison is dumb. The subject was the comparaison, and not what type of energy is better for the environment.

        You’re interpreting.

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Coal smoke is more radioactive than the outside of a fission reactor anyhow.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      What consequences?
      There are no consequences for animals in Chernobyl, they are thriving in all aspects, even mammals living underground (mutations are fiction).

      People that didn’t leave the exclusion zone died of old age there.

      Life on Earth had to deal with all sorts of radiation.

      What caused mass extinction was ecosystem change, eg via global climate change.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      16 hours ago

      these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.

      You bury them in concrete, done. Nuclear waste isn’t an issue and hasn’t ever been

      • spirinolas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yeah, just bury it and make it someone else’s problem in the future.

        I’ve seen this train of thinking somewhere. Spoiler alert, it was a bad idea.

        • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          someone else’s problem in the future

          Nope, if you bury it in a few inches of concrete it’s literally never a problem again unless society somehow completely collapsed and all knowledge of nuclear waste is lost

          I’ve seen this train of thinking somewhere. Spoiler alert, it was a bad idea.

          I’ve seen this level of confidence from people who don’t know what they’re talking about before. Spoiler alert, it’s embarrassing for you

          • spirinolas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            I’ve seen this level of confidence from people who don’t know what they’re talking about before. Spoiler alert, it’s embarrassing for you

            Ahahahahahah! Oh the irony! Drop the smugness.

            Dude, you don’t know as much about nuclear energy as you think. But you know even less about concrete.

            if you bury it in a few inches of concrete it’s literally never a problem again

            I’m putting this one on Facebook for my civil engineer friends to laugh at. It’s going to be a riot. Concrete is pourous as hell and doesn’t last much on a grand scale. And on top of that you think a few inches is enough? This is nuclear waste, it’s not Emma Dorothy from Sunday school!

            Stop embarrassing yourself.

            • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              Drop the smugness.

              Nah, you want to start it when you’re talking out your ass, imma keep it when I’m correcting you.

              Dude, you don’t know as much about nuclear energy as you think. But you know even less about concrete.

              Oh wow, good scientific counterpoints! If only you could Google it and find out for yourself…

              Stop embarrassing yourself

              You really should, 5s in Google and I found exactly what I’m talking about:

              I simplified with just using “concrete” because “they fill a container with inert gas and pour concrete around it and it’s fine” is easily shortened to “dump concrete around it”

              Shit, theres a YouTube video of someone kissing one of those, standing next to it for the whole video, nothing happens at all. You have no idea what you’re talking about

              Facebook

              Oh, I see I’m dealing with a mental deficient here, I apologize for assuming you were of standard mental functionality