XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.global-warming, alt.atheism   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 12/23/25 11:11 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:   
   > dart200  wrote:   
   >> On 12/23/25 9:12 AM, Samuel Spade wrote:   
   >   
   >>> You still aren't getting it.   
   >>>   
   >>> It's not necessary for evildoers to "have" nukes, or nuclear material.   
   >>> Maybe you didn't notice that Russia shelled Chernobyl, in the Ukraine?   
   >>> With real live explosive artillery.  And that Russia shelled the   
   >>> Zaporizhzhia nuclear reactor too, it wanton disregard for the potential   
   >>> consequences.  It was dumb luck that no major incident happened.   
   >>>   
   >>> One well-placed shell could trigger a mess that makes Chernobyl look   
   >>> like a cake walk.  Now, you're telling us you have a  plan to make that   
   >>> impossible to happen?   
   >>   
   >> do u think we can survive without ending war, bro?   
   >   
   >   
   > Humans have survived war since Adam, so obviously yes.   
      
   humans have not so far had to deal with global systemic problems   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> and sure we could bury the reactors, that would make them arty proof   
   >> unless someone specifically targets it with a bunker buster. which idk,   
   >> are you worried about random bunker busters too, cause that seems a bit   
   >> paradnoid. but even burying them is pretty paranoid.   
   >   
   > How do you bury cooling towers?   
      
   bruh u would only bury the reactors. we can make them passively meltdown   
   proof due to physics rather than our control systems. there are various   
   physical techniques to do that, some of which are incredibly robust in   
   nature.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>> Environmental safeguards are irrelevant when nuclear power plants are   
   >>>>> being shelled.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> make this power plants backed by a defensive pact for all nations   
   >>>> participating in the coalition. make it an act of war to mess with it.   
   >>>> leaving small terrorist groups, which idk do you think we can't secure   
   >>>> our sites??? build them underground, global real time monitoring ...   
   >>>> like we know how to do 1st world physical security bro. we just need to   
   >>>> trust the org doing it, which is why it needs to be an international   
   >>>> cooperative.   
   >>>   
   >>> Happy talk.  Chernobyl was protected from terrorists and bad actors by   
   >>> the USSR.  The USSR lasted forever, didn't it?  Now Chernobyl is in a   
   >>> different country, which is being attacked by another different country.   
   >>> It's in a war zone now.   
   >>>   
   >>> Nations come and go.  Strong governments are replaced with weak ones,   
   >>> invaders, and warlords.  Pu 229 is (almost) forever.   
   >>   
   >> again, if we don't stick with literally 1970s tech, we can build   
   >> reactors that extract energy far more effectively and don't leave almost   
   >> forever waste.   
   >   
   > Great.  Does that mean no radioactive pollution when they get blown up?   
   >   
   > Chernobyl scattered radioactive shit all across Ukraine and Europe. That   
   > was a mild case.   
      
   instead of using chernobyl as a cause to build more advance, physically   
   safer reactors ... we pulled back and left all the 1970s era technology   
   in place. fucking brilliant move there bro, and u are still in that   
   direction for some ungodly reason.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> also the catholic church lasted 2000 years. it's weird for an athiest to   
   >> preach on how nothing can last, while ignoring the few orgs they   
   >> consider themselves entirely above   
   >   
   > Right, so that proves all governments can last 2000 years and guard an   
   > eternal waste dump securely.  If you just chain the doors with a rosary,   
   > nobody will fuck with it.   
      
   BRUH advanced nuclear can bring that down to <300. if we can't plan for   
   that then we're gunna go extinct anyways dude, so who gives a shit about   
   terrorists? might as well try to plan for that.   
      
   >   
   >> i see u drank all the oil propaganda. next time drink the oil too   
   >   
   > You're the one who was trying to convince me that renewables are too   
   > dangerous and unabundant to be practical.  I never mentioned oil, and   
   > it's as dirty and primitive as fission.   
      
   renewables are safe   
      
   renewables are not abundant to 10-20x our total energy usage   
      
   >   
   > When all else fails, invent a conspiracy.   
      
   marketing is not a conspiracy   
      
   >   
   > Now go drink your cooling water.   
      
      
   --   
   a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve   
   basic semantic proofs like halting analysis   
      
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
      
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)