Apparently that "expert" has a YouTube channel and kept posting their YouTube links to that sub, when that sub doesn't want videos as posts, it wants articles.
so in other words guy does classic spamming of his own work in contravention of clearly stated sitewide spam policies, gets marked as spammer, and banned from space he spammed.
Yeah, this post did actually clear something up for me though.
Like, I actually know about nuclear energy, some of the worst years of my life was nuclear enginerring school lol. And the last couple years I never understood why so many people online have such strong nuclear opinions but don't seem to actually know anything about it....
It's because there's YouTubers like this. Like. I looked at his profile and it's stuff like pictures of people climbing on Chernobyl equipment that's still dangerously radioactive
"This writer sucks and knows nothing, look at the cover"
"But did you even read the book"
"When did I ever say I did, I don't want to open it, why are you so opinionated"
You kind of have to consume something before people think you have a valid opinion on it. He was calling you out on it and he's clearly right, you don't have to be a baby about it.
have such strong nuclear opinions but don’t seem to actually know anything about it…
I would point out that doubt is the appropriate response when one doesn't have all the facts. You're not asking people to trust science, you're asking people to trust in the institutions that were certain people around Chernobyl and Fukushima were totally safe and trust us bro.
I think you could make a great argument that faith in governments, regulators, and industry to protect public health is the irrational position.
I'm pro nuke, but you shouldn't dismiss those who fear nuclear tech as irrational and stupid.
You’re not asking people to trust science, you’re asking people to trust in the institutions that were certain people around Chernobyl and Fukushima were totally safe and trust us bro
...
So have you even heard of a power coefficient before?
Everyone knew Chernobyl was inherently unsafe, because a positive power coefficient is just an insane design which is why only the Soviets were doing it.
And Fukushima was concurrent earthquakes and a tsunami... Like, you can't really prepare for everything.
Your heart might be in the right place, but you clearly haven't actually learned about nuclear power.
I'm sure you've watched some YouTube videos tho, made by other people who don't understand nuclear power.
This is hopeful, and we need more nuclear, but I have very serious questions about the methodology to this survey.
The prior marks on the line graph indicate not all categories of response are represented, as the don’t add up to 100%. Then there is a sudden change over the last 4 years where the % supporting jumps to the mid 70s and all four periods add up to exactly 100%.
This, to me, feels like a question change on or around 2021, or a methodology change that’s not clearly labeled, and casts doubt on the integrity of the research, especially given the generally modest level of knowledge about nuclear, which, according to my read of the article and survey details, doesn’t appear to have changed at any point.
@Emil “A common European market for nuclear power plants would enable the benefits of serial production, and this requires a technology-neutral climate and energy policy from the EU, as well as cooperation between nuclear safety authorities in harmonising requirements.”
This is what I'm talking about! A European cooperation like this would be great idea!
Nuclear Energy
Top