this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
361 points (95.0% liked)

Not The Onion

12570 readers
708 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 61 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I think 3 mile Island and Chernobyl and Fukushima and Sosnovy Bor and Ibaraki and Forsmark were probably more influential in terrifying the general public about nuclear power.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 50 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Yeah it's also people using those incidents for fear mongering. Especially when coal and oil have killed way more people than every nuclear incident combined, including nuclear weapons.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 21 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The psychological impact of a meltdown versus slow poisoning is important. Similar to how fire bombings were more deadly and destructive than the nuclear bombs were, but the nukes have a bigger impact on us mentally

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Familiarity also. People are more afraid of dying in a very rare plane crash than dying in a car accident. Same with terrorism vs regular crime.

[–] aniki@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah we firebomed Tokyo to cinders. Hardly any of the original buildings remain and the ones that did are all landmarks.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I've heard people say shit like "after Chernobyl, two fishermen were instantly vaporized and only boots left on the bank!" Like, no, that never happened since it wasn't an atomic bomb.

[–] aniki@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

The closest to that were the people on the bridge who were looking at the radiation that died a couple of days after.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Chernobyl showed that an accident could make an entire region unlivable indefinitely, Three Mile Island showed that an accident could happen in the US too

Nuclear accidents became real. People could no longer trust that all the safeguards and safety culture could prevent it. And the impact of how serious an accident could get outweighs the rarity.

Or a more objective and dispassionate way to look at it, is the seriousness of any potential accidents caused enough process safeguard to make nuclear power too expensive to be worthwhile

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The cost of building them and waste storage issues were a major factor

[–] grayman@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Apparent waste storage issues... If people really knew about all the pollution from fossil fuels, they'd clamor for nuclear power.

[–] BleatingZombie@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

It's weird that the first one you listed didn't have any injuries or deaths. I think you might be a victim of that fear mongering, friend