this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
524 points (85.5% liked)

Science Memes

20656 readers
2260 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Meta Post Tags

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

If you are here asking: "Is this a science meme?"

Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn't need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why or how.

Science isn't a filing cabinet of facts, it's a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what's under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.

We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged.

See the pinned paper on Shitposting as Public Pedagogy if you want the academic case for why this works.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
fossilesque@mander.xyz
SciBot@mander.xyz
fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com
524
Anon questions our energy sector (slrpnk.net)
submitted 2 years ago by MataVatnik@lemmy.world to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
378 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

And that cannot happen. It's a fear people have because they equate a nuclear power plant with a nuclear bomb. That is as wrong as considering the earth flat.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Chernobyl

But that was a really old tech, the plants built after 1990s shouldn't allow this scale of pollution even if all the stops are pulled and everything breaks in the worst way possible

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Chernobyl yes, let's talk about it : after the catastrophy, 2 reactors were used until very recently (like until 10 or 20 years ago).

After the catastrophy, Chernobyl was made into an exclusion zone where people wouldn't be allowed to live. But people came back 10 years after and it's a small village now.

BTW even Hiroshima and Nagazaki that were annihilated with atomic bombs, that is weapons meant to destroy whole cities, were quickly inhabited again.

So much for the permanent destruction and millions of years of contamination. CO2 is a far more deadly compound for mankind than any radioactive material. Anti-nuke militants are merely ignorant fanatics.

[–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Fukushima?

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Fukushima, in 2024,is a city of 272569 inhabitants. If that's unlivable, I'm fine with it. Hiroshima, Nagazaki and Chernobyl are all inhabited too.

Saying that nuclear stuff makes places unlivable is plain wrong, it's anti-science. It's comics level of bullshit science. Travel in time is a more serious theory than nuclear stuff destroying the planet.