yes i know that, genius. the point is that is not an argument people are using for nuclear. it’s a blatant straw man from someone clearly not engaging in a goood faith discussion.
That’s kind of the point; it’s not a straw man, it’s saying that the options should be considered on their merits not on irrelevancies. “There are no bonus points added to the scoring just because nuclear looks cool when it glows”
Not among the general population, but among internet nerd culture, nuclear has a certain level of support purely for cultural reasons. There’s a culture of people on the internet who like nuclear primarily as a cultural shibboleth. If you can convince yourself that the only reason nuclear hasn’t taken off is due to unreasonable fear and technical illiteracy, then supporting nuclear is extremely self-affirming. Supporting nuclear is a way of saying to yourself and others “I am a rational and scientific person. I know the facts about nuclear. I know the fears of its safety are overblown. I’m smart and intelligent while the common rubes are scientifically illiterate fools.”
The truth is that while groups like Greenpeace exist, nuclear has failed largely because it’s just too damn expensive. But fission fanboys never talk about the cost. They just wax endlessly about how safe nuclear is, or repost old canards about how coal releases more radiation than nuclear, or the per-watt death figures. Etc. Endless repetition of factually correct but utterly irrelevant information.
where the fuck did anybody say that?
“Glowing in the dark” refers to nuclear power sources. Hope this helps.
yes i know that, genius. the point is that is not an argument people are using for nuclear. it’s a blatant straw man from someone clearly not engaging in a goood faith discussion.
That’s kind of the point; it’s not a straw man, it’s saying that the options should be considered on their merits not on irrelevancies. “There are no bonus points added to the scoring just because nuclear looks cool when it glows”
A lot of people support nuclear for largely cultural reasons.
What cultural reasons would anybody support it for?
Not among the general population, but among internet nerd culture, nuclear has a certain level of support purely for cultural reasons. There’s a culture of people on the internet who like nuclear primarily as a cultural shibboleth. If you can convince yourself that the only reason nuclear hasn’t taken off is due to unreasonable fear and technical illiteracy, then supporting nuclear is extremely self-affirming. Supporting nuclear is a way of saying to yourself and others “I am a rational and scientific person. I know the facts about nuclear. I know the fears of its safety are overblown. I’m smart and intelligent while the common rubes are scientifically illiterate fools.”
The truth is that while groups like Greenpeace exist, nuclear has failed largely because it’s just too damn expensive. But fission fanboys never talk about the cost. They just wax endlessly about how safe nuclear is, or repost old canards about how coal releases more radiation than nuclear, or the per-watt death figures. Etc. Endless repetition of factually correct but utterly irrelevant information.