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

Science Memes

20656 readers
2250 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
[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

People don't put reactors next to cities for a reason. Meaning this scenario wouldn't happen. Nuclear is also one of the safest energy sources overall in terms of deaths caused. It's safer than some renewables even, and that's not factoring in advances in the technology that have happened over the decades making it safer. This kind of misinformation is dangerous. It's also not a good reason not to do nuclear. The reason why renewables are used more (and probably have a somewhat larger role to play in general) is because they a cheaper and quicker to manufacture. Nuclear energy's primary problem isn't safety but rather cost. It's biggest strength is reliability.

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

I know nuclear is super safe but we have actual examples of accidents happening and making cities unlivable, you can't deny that.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Which cities? I haven't heard of any cities being made unlivable, only towns and villages.

[–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

🙄 I'm sorry, I was unaware of the population requirement

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember. So it is literally a requirement that says you can't build reactors in high population density areas.

[–] whome@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Depends on where you live, Germany that gets the beating for phasing out nuclear, is so densely populated that these remote areas hardly exist!

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

That's actually an interesting point. Maybe we shouldn't put nuclear reactors in Germany.