4 ms·

> The first thing human beings did after discovering nuclear energy was use it for mass murder this is nothing but FUD designed to evoke a connection to death.

> The first thing human beings did after discovering nuclear energy was use it for mass murder this is nothing but FUD designed to evoke a connection to death. technology isn't responsible for what its used for, and any negative past uses in no way preclude future beneficial uses. even if you don't like nuclear you should be ashamed of saying things like this. > I don't know how anybody can believe the resistance to nuclear is purely out of ignorance because antinuclear arguments look like yours.

calibas 6y ago
I'm sorry, but the history of WW2 is not "FUD". You can't just scream "FUD!" at anything to instantly dismiss it. And we're still making nuclear weapons. That is a connection to death, they're used to kill people. I'm against that personally. And I'm not even anti nuclear power, I'm certainly support it more than petroleum. I just realize why people are skeptical of nuclear too.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Although nuclear bombs were the major threat deployed in the war, nuclear power in vessels is the major actually-used application for the technology in the military. Nuclear power and a general surplus of energy might have prevented WWII altogether. The era of nuclear and fossil fuels has been remarkably peaceful and prosperous. It is prudent to preserve as much of that as possible.
- gameman144 6y ago
  But pretty much everything is connected to death. Computers are used for missile-targeting systems, but also for Wikipedia. I'd argue that anyone that's skeptical of computers in all their uses is missing the forest for the trees.
  - calibas 6y ago
    Does nuclear fission not produce produce incredibly toxic substances, both during mining the resources and from operating? My computer isn't doing that at the moment, these are such bad analogies... And I'm skeptical of gasoline-powered vehicles "in all their uses" for the same reason. It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this?
    - orthecreedence 6y ago
      > My computer isn't doing that at the moment Your computer was produced using all green energy, using eco-friendly manufacturing with resources that are mined in sustainable ways? Wow, it must have cost a fortune. This argument makes it seem like you're fine with people being poisoned as long as it's somewhere else. > It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this? Would you say we are poisoning ourselves by blasting carbon into the air? I would. And by that metric, it obviously makes sense to look at the alternatives, and it seems to me that nuclear is currently the least-poisonous way to power our collective needs. Solar just cannot do it. Maybe on a bright sunny day it can! But it's not always bright and sunny, sometimes it's night or it's cloudy. So you need to overproduce, and store the energy somewhere. Where is it stored? According to 90% of the solar advocates here, in batteries filled with poison, that are produced using poisonous manufacturing. Solar and other renewables are not as "clean" as we'd like to think, and they also are just not up to the task yet. Nuclear is. I get that you're not anti-nuclear, but maybe this is some ammo you can use when you're arguing for it.
      - calibas 6y ago
        I made sure to specify "at the moment" as I'm well aware of the consequences of mining the resources to produce both computers and nuclear energy. I was trying to avoid this exact conversation. I'd be dead if my computer was producing anything comparable to nuclear fission at the moment. Also, I've lived off grid on solar power for over a year, I'm well aware of what it's like.
    - gameman144 6y ago
      > It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Kidney beans can potentially poison you. Salad can potentially poison you. Nutmeg can potentially poison you. It's fine to be skeptical, yes. But if they have strong merits, abstaining solely based on their potential downsides is irrational. Taking a stance of weighing the upsides and downsides and deciding that the upsides aren't worth it is fine. Saying "there are downsides" and using that as a basis for rejection is just silly, as that's true of basically everything you'll ever interact with.
dang 6y ago
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. It leads to repetitive, tedious, nasty discussion. We don't want that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

calibas 6y ago

I'm sorry, but the history of WW2 is not "FUD". You can't just scream "FUD!" at anything to instantly dismiss it. And we're still making nuclear weapons. That is a connection to death, they're used to kill people. I'm against that personally. And I'm not even anti nuclear power, I'm certainly support it more than petroleum. I just realize why people are skeptical of nuclear too.

roenxi 6y ago
Although nuclear bombs were the major threat deployed in the war, nuclear power in vessels is the major actually-used application for the technology in the military. Nuclear power and a general surplus of energy might have prevented WWII altogether. The era of nuclear and fossil fuels has been remarkably peaceful and prosperous. It is prudent to preserve as much of that as possible.
gameman144 6y ago
But pretty much everything is connected to death. Computers are used for missile-targeting systems, but also for Wikipedia. I'd argue that anyone that's skeptical of computers in all their uses is missing the forest for the trees.
- calibas 6y ago
  Does nuclear fission not produce produce incredibly toxic substances, both during mining the resources and from operating? My computer isn't doing that at the moment, these are such bad analogies... And I'm skeptical of gasoline-powered vehicles "in all their uses" for the same reason. It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this?
  - orthecreedence 6y ago
    > My computer isn't doing that at the moment Your computer was produced using all green energy, using eco-friendly manufacturing with resources that are mined in sustainable ways? Wow, it must have cost a fortune. This argument makes it seem like you're fine with people being poisoned as long as it's somewhere else. > It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this? Would you say we are poisoning ourselves by blasting carbon into the air? I would. And by that metric, it obviously makes sense to look at the alternatives, and it seems to me that nuclear is currently the least-poisonous way to power our collective needs. Solar just cannot do it. Maybe on a bright sunny day it can! But it's not always bright and sunny, sometimes it's night or it's cloudy. So you need to overproduce, and store the energy somewhere. Where is it stored? According to 90% of the solar advocates here, in batteries filled with poison, that are produced using poisonous manufacturing. Solar and other renewables are not as "clean" as we'd like to think, and they also are just not up to the task yet. Nuclear is. I get that you're not anti-nuclear, but maybe this is some ammo you can use when you're arguing for it.
    - calibas 6y ago
      I made sure to specify "at the moment" as I'm well aware of the consequences of mining the resources to produce both computers and nuclear energy. I was trying to avoid this exact conversation. I'd be dead if my computer was producing anything comparable to nuclear fission at the moment. Also, I've lived off grid on solar power for over a year, I'm well aware of what it's like.
  - gameman144 6y ago
    > It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Kidney beans can potentially poison you. Salad can potentially poison you. Nutmeg can potentially poison you. It's fine to be skeptical, yes. But if they have strong merits, abstaining solely based on their potential downsides is irrational. Taking a stance of weighing the upsides and downsides and deciding that the upsides aren't worth it is fine. Saying "there are downsides" and using that as a basis for rejection is just silly, as that's true of basically everything you'll ever interact with.

dang 6y ago

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. It leads to repetitive, tedious, nasty discussion. We don't want that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html