While I think most of this is true, I do doubt your claim that Chernobyl didn’t cause birth defects. Even if it didn’t cause defects in humans because they were evacuated, it still caused birth defects in animals that stayed behind. I mean the thing killed a forest. It’s easier to cause mutations than outright kill something - this is especially true in the newly conceived.

There was never any real risk of ruining an entire continent. Stop watching TV shows like Chernobyl for accurate information. Perhaps some people thought that at the time, but we now know that kind of thing is impossible. It could have been a worse accident for sure if there was another steam explosion and it would have effected a wider area, but not even close to a continent lol.

This is the way. Nuclear is actually one of the safer energy sources, and one of the more reliable. It’s also more expensive than most renewables. As always it comes down to local conditions and situations that favor one power source over another - like countries with lots of geothermal that can be exploited or solar probably won’t go nuclear.

Yet it still has much lower deaths per energy generated than fossil fuels, and even less than some renewables. A single hydro accident can kill more people than even the worst nuclear disasters. It’s not fair to pretend that all the other sources are perfectly safe.

A hydro damn breaking has killed more people than Chernobyl before, and probably will again. Renewables are not perfect either unfortunately. Though some are slightly safer than nuclear.

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 and availability. You can build a nuclear plant basically anywhere where there is water.

Renewables folks are also always looking for things that don’t exist. Like magical energy storage and transmission solutions that don’t cost the earth or have huge losses. Or wave power which still hasn’t materialized after decades of research.

Breeder reactors already exist??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reactors

Moving electricity around is a hard problem. Even just moving energy from one end of Britain to the other looses us 10 or 20%, and we are a small nation. If you need to start moving energy in from somewhere actually sunny like Spain you are going to have a big problem.

Crypto isn’t looking for a problem, fiat has plenty of problems, it’s just not an optimal solution. Probably the real answer is not using money at all.

The guy replied with reasonable arguments. You just don’t want to entertain that nuclear might have a place in some countries. Apparently wanting nuclear to make up less than half of energy generation is called being a shill.

Nuclear power is also not a fossil fuel. That’s ridiculous. It comes from elements naturally found on earth that are the product of nuclear fusion reactions in supernova. Not the result of plant matter decaying underground.

Do you not think there are pro-renewable lobbies too? There are lobbies for all power sources including fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables. Can you link anything that doesn’t come from a pro-renewable lobby.

You don’t actually need to mine more uranium though. You can run certain nuclear designs on Thorium, Plutonium from weapon stocks, or even waste from other reactors. Current generation nuclear designs are laughably inefficient at using the nuclear fuels we have available, and I fully understand why people don’t support them.

Realistically though I don’t ever expect nuclear fission to be as cheap as renewables in most areas. In some places nuclear or another power source is always going to be needed though just because renewables are not practical in certain conditions.

In the long term the answer is almost certainly going to be nuclear fusion or another future power source like neutrino voltaic. Solar and wind power are ultimately just offshoots of fusion, and so is fission if you think about where uranium, thorium and so on come from. In fact all power we know of seems to come from either gravity or some kind of nuclear reaction (inc. geothermal and fossil fuels).

You do realize that all that is also expensive, and limited? We haven’t invented room temperature superconductors yet, and battery technology is far from perfect. There is only so much lithium and cobalt in the entire world. Yes we can now use things like sodium, but that’s a technology that’s still young and needs more research before it’s full potential is realized. There is also a reason we have overground cables and not underground. Digging up all that earth is hella expensive.

Could honestly try a virtual machine or an emulator at that point. Would be worth a shot.

Yes, yes they can.

I mean for one it supports a lot less hardware. Second it’s significantly less reliable. Third it has thing like Co-Pilot built-in. I don’t know how people aren’t criticizing it more frankly.

You really have no idea.

Drinking enough will make you overdose, it’s called alcohol poisoning and can be fatal. This isn’t really any different to other substances you can overdose on. There are some substances where a fatal overdose has never happened in fact, THC and LSD being notable examples. I don’t know about you but I consider death to be pretty show stopping for me. Obviously if your some supernatural entity or something it might not be a huge deal for you.

As for effect length: how many drugs do you think take longer than 24 hours to stop being high? There are some that have long legs don’t get me wrong, but they are the minority. Some substances such as DMT and Ketamine actually last a shorter time than alcohol, and have less after effects like a hangover. In fact a bad alcohol hangover can easily last longer than 24 hours after imbibing. Alcohol withdrawal for serious addicts lasts quite a while too, up to a couple weeks I think, and can also be fatal if not treated correctly.

All you are doing here is proving you don’t understand how drugs work nor do you have practical experience by the sounds of it. I would argue if you don’t understand how drugs work you shouldn’t be allowed to set policy on them. Uninformed opinions are dangerous.

Unfortunately some people have no idea women like this actually exist and need to be told that drug use is a part of normal suburban life. Though to be honest I am kind of against the idolisation of suburbs, they are really inefficient, but I digress. Articles like this help break down the stigma around this kind of drug. A stigma that makes little sense as well given their safety profile and effectiveness in treating some illnesses like treatment resistant depression, anxiety, and PTSD.

I don’t particularly commend the women, nor the news outlet, for coming out about this though; it is still very much technically illegal by current law. But, I also do agree that the stigma attached to drug use, even when done so responsibly, is in fact ridiculous and stupid in general. However, I don’t see a better way of achieving what that does…so I couldn’t suggest any better alternatives and I don’t support going back to a previous era in Law where drugs that factually are provably dangerous, for some reason, are not regulated. Reasonable and Sensible Regulations on dangerous Drugs are REQUIRED; it’s just that some people have a different definition of ‘Reasonable and Sensible’ which has to be ironed into a proper consensus for society.

We should start with the most dangerous drug in our society: alcohol.

Oh wait the Americans tried that and it actually made things worse. Shocking.

Drug prohibition doesn’t and has never worked. We also know neither voters nor politicians understand nor follow scientific consensus on drugs. Not popular consensus. Scientific consensus. Very different things unfortunately.

Look up any ranking of drug harms published by scientists. You might honestly be shocked. Things that people consider safe like alcohol normally end up being ranked much higher than other things commonly thought of as dangerous like nicotine or amphetamines. As much as smoking is bad there is way too much focus on it compared to alcohol and some other stuff. I know there are even some people that think of cocaine as being relatively normal and safe because of its overall popularity, yet if you actually look into it it’s not healthy at all.

Can someone explain what is going on here?

Someone using Linux Mint would be a good guess as I don’t think they default to Google.

Then you use DuckDuckGo like I do. Not every search engine has gone to complete shit. Google was just an example. Obviously it’s not the current meta in terms of search engines.

Are you honestly telling me there aren’t people asking basic questions that could be solved with a google search? Don’t get me wrong the kind of question you are talking about does exist, but that’s now what I am discussing here.