198
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
198 points (99.0% liked)
Not The Onion
11847 readers
1232 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I know certain sentiments are coming, so I'll put this here: Three Mile Island wasn't the unmitigated disaster that fearmongers would have you believe. It was an ultimately harmless accident that was highly publicized because of poor communication and irresponsible sensationalist journalism.
More on the topic: https://youtu.be/cL9PsCLJpAA
It was actually a success story. It failed safe, as designed.
Unfortunately "The China Syndrome" really pumped up anti-nuclesr sentiment.
TMI was the opposite of Chernobyl.
Heh, you see my posts? That movie came out not 2-weeks ahead of 3-Mile. Freaky isn't it?
Posted this earlier:
A poof of radioactive steam let loose. That's it, the whole incident. People freaked out on March 28, 1979.
In totally unrelated news, The China Syndrome, a popular movie about a reactor meltdown, came out March 16, 1979.
I thought the Netflix show was pretty clear it wasn't as bad as popular history made it out to be.
Yep. And underscoring that more than almost anything else is the fact that the TMI facility continued to operate without incident for forty years after that accident.
"Nuclear" sounds scary but it doesn't have to be and generally isn't. There are currently 94 active nuclear reactors in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States
IMHO, the correct take on " uses enormous amounts of energy" is "yes, we do need to invest more in renewable and clean energy". Anyone who didn't have their head in the sand could have known that last century. This is only a problem now because our political leaders have failed us, year after year, decade after decade.
Related, unfun fact: MRI used to be called NMRI, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging, because it used the nuclear magnetic resonance phenomenon (literally a nuclear vibe check), but people were so afraid of the word "nuclear" that it was dropped.
Small addendum, there's 94 commercial reactors that are generating power for the grid
But there's a few dozen more active nuclear reactors that exist for things like training and research.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_research_reactors#United_States
And then there's like 80 reactors moving around the world, docking in our ports.
Thank you for the clarification!