A mainstream fairly well funded sequel to a cult classic owned by a company that has yet to develop anything even close to the same quality as a janky pre-release third-party source game that has switched developers at least once now?
…I’m sure it will be fine, it’s not like there’s at least two other examples of that exact scenario failing miserably.
Hyperbole works against your goals, and is a direct driver of teen vaping. There are absolutely positive effects with nicotine, to pretend otherwise is simply ‘Reefer Madness’ for overly panicked sheltered millennials. The primary problem, and thus the messaging, should be that the positives do not outweigh the negatives; and nicotine addiction is incredibly hard to break away from.
An ‘evolved’ society that resorts to pointless, unfounded, unscientific scare tactics to justify government control isn’t an evolved society, it’s the 1920s.
Everything is harmful though, that’s the problem of existence. Nicotine is a psychoactive drug that does have both positive and negative effects. Vaping is safer than almost every other delivery method, and it’s the safest recreational delivery method available. There’s more than enough education on why nicotine is bad, which is the most you can really do.
People still drink, despite the physical addiction risks, the massive health risks of even a single drink a week, and the fact drinking any amount puts you almost comically more at risk of physical injury than not drinking. The education is fully out there. People still do it.
Free will is a hell of a thing, and restricting it has never ended well for those that restrict it, regardless of reason.
You hear constant propaganda about how something’s bad for you, you try it to rebel a bit, you get a buzz, you get addicted.
Some people simply aren’t as attached to life as you are.
I am in the EU. There is literally no storage for highly radioactive waste.
Pay to store it in Finland, like everyone else is doing. They currently have a facility that isn’t even a quarter full and can be heavily expanded.
That’s not true. Nuclear waste can also contaminate ground water, if stored incorrectly. And as we discussed: we have no storage solution for the highly radioactive waste and thus can’t store it correctly.
Solar panels can contaminate ground water if stored incorrectly, that’s a useless statement.
And as discussed there are thousands of storage facilities available. Just because your specific economic union has not built one yet, does not mean you cannot use one of the commercial ones, and by the way these long-term storage facilities aren’t the part that store the waste safely. The containers do, and short of a nuclear bomb going off the waste isn’t escaping them. So much so that despite waste existing since the 1960s, there has never been an incident of nuclear waste escaping containment. Ever. Coal spillages have caused more radioactive contamination than nuclear waste.
Literally in any of the hundreds of current underground sites? It’s also not highly toxic, it’s radioactive. There’s a pretty huge difference. Nuclear waste doesn’t leech into the water cycle like the run off of broken solar panels or turbine arms.
This is a serious problem I think isn’t actually talked about enough. There is a ‘ring of trust’ on most social media now that in my opinion goes far too far; if you don’t have enough algorithmically determined ‘trust,’ you’ll be booted off without a way to appeal. Reddit shadowbans the vast majority of new accounts, but hasn’t been able to cut down on spambots; Facebook by its nature needs ridiculous amounts of personal information but even then doesn’t actually use it to assign more trust since bot-owners can supply generated information that’s equally as valid; really all social media, especially if you do anything at all to protect your privacy, assumes you’re a spambot first, then only lets you participate after you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you might be a human. I understand we’re already half way into developing a dead internet, but there’s no reason we need to go full throttle into it by limiting actual humans from signing up past a certain point in a product’s lifespan.
Baseload is not a goal, it’s a limit.
I would love to know what oil company you heard that from, since it’s absolutely not true. You can both turn them off quickly (faster, in fact, than LNG or Coal), start them up quickly (sub minutes) and change production quickly. These have all been features since 1960’s era reactors, and we’re around 10 generations past them.
How long do you think it takes to build renewables? It’s been about 20 years since most countries have started implementation and no country is 100% reliant on renewable energy or could store even a night’s energy needs without generation.
Storage, we have less Lithium than you seem to think, and pumped hydro is not a solution – not that it’s not a universal solution, it’s simply not a solution. Implementation costs more than a nuclear reactor and maintenance and security costs are way, way higher than a nuclear reactor. We, unless you want to adopt a powerless overnight lifestyle, need on-demand power generation. Nuclear is the best, safest, cleanest, most feasible option for that until we remove all precious metals from energy storage technology.
deleted by creator
Nuclear power is exactly as renewable as solar power; and ‘highly’ radioactive waste is a fraction of a fraction of the waste generated, with most waste being less harmful than living within 50 miles of a coal mine, or 100 miles of a coal power plant. It’s also entirely defeated by a relatively small amount of one of the most common metals on Earth. Additionally, if we were to power the entire world with just nuclear power, the amount of unusable waste generated per year globally would be smaller than a compact sedan, requiring a little less than a box-truck sized container to store it safely anywhere on the planet. It would take several tens of billions of years to accumulate to a problematic size for safe storage.
The short answer is the fossil fuel industry and those who support it desperately want to encourage any kind of infighting among any and all people concerned with the climate; Greenpeace itself has been funded massively by the oil and coal industries throughout its lifetime specifically to oppose nuclear power. It’s news now because as we look towards energy generation over the next 50 years we can either have large amounts of LNG and coal power plants while we pretend there’s enough Lithium on Earth to support a renewable-based grid, or we can essentially eliminate 100% of natural gas, coal, and oil-based power plants in the next 15 years and work towards renewable grids with post-lithium power storage over the next 150 years. That latter scenario would nearly eliminate the global coal and natural gas industries, and severely harm the oil industry. So the more ‘division’ they can sow to delay a decision in either direction, the better it is for them.
Renewables generate more toxic waste per mWh than any nuclear reactor design.
Modern nuclear reactors do not used enriched uranium, and thus cannot be used to build a bomb; but go off I guess.
Welp, there goes the exploration of the world factor.