World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
No, it's objectively not unfounded. Again, you might call it irrational, but that's not the same thing.
Arguing about Chernobyl is about the dumbest thing to do.
It was very old reactor, no other like that is in Germany, therefore it's unfounded.
So what you're saying is that no German reactor would ever be online for years while its backup power supply, critical for safety, was offline? Because yes that happened. Or that this is a proper way to store nuclear waste? Because that happened, too. Just as the water incursions into that salt mine.
Long story short humans can't be trusted with this shit. If you think we can, you're naive.
No, fear doesn't work like that. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen, and fear tends to be about just those things.
Again, you can call it irrational, but it is objectively not unfounded. There is a foundation, even if it's unlikely. You don't get to change the meaning of the word "unfounded" just because you think something isn't likely to happen.
Again, there aren't those reactors in service. End of story.
Coal puts out more radioactivity into air, yet nobody mentions that. So fuck this 'founded' fear. It's not real.
I don't know if you're trolling. Of course people aren't afraid of exactly these reactors blowing up again. They are afraid of nuclear accidents in general. There's always a chance for things to go wrong, otherwise we wouldn't have had Fukushima a couple of years ago. Some link in the chain can always fuck up.
"Coal puts out more radioactivity into air" is an incredibly stupid point. "More radioactivity" than what? People aren't going through the same precautions they had to when they lived through the last fallout. That's not real in this context.
Were there any precautions in Germany after Chernobyl? I'm from eastern Europe and there weren't any.
Nuclear disasters are not happening despite there being hundreds of plants in operation. It's all just FUD spread by the fossil lobby.
Yes, lots. After the accident a bunch of places in Germany measured far higher-than-normal radiation levels. There were lots of unclear signals going through the government and media - the different states had different recommendations and there were lots of confusing/opposing signals going through the government and media. Some examples:
All of this happened during the formative years of a large part of our population. Can you understand how this does give a foundation to the fear?
One happened a couple of years ago, and I guarantee you more will happen - as long as humans are involved in the cycle, things can and will go wrong. Modern designs make this far less likely and hopefully reduce the worst outcomes by a lot, but how sure are you that all our reactors are secured against e.g. sabotage? What if an enemy nation invades and gains control of the reactor? What if individual systems get attacked by drones? We're entering a new age - don't underestimate what terrible things can happen this time around.
Also, Fukushima happened due to natural disasters. Climate change is changing what magnitude of disaster happens where, so they might hit reactors that aren't prepared for these disasters. Is every nuclear reactor worldwide safe from a Fukushima-type accident under all possible conditions?
I'm not that well versed, but I would expect modern designs be unable to be used as a weapon, at least easily. When someone brings heavy equipment (and I will file Fukushima under a 'very heavy forces'), they can do anything. Putting the blame on nuclear is again just fearmongering.
Thank you for providing me more info about the Germany at that time. Did that happen throughout, or just the west part? Because IIRC the east block was celebrating First May like it was no big deal.
I get that people may be scared, but again that's now how things work. Coal is 100 times more radioactive than nuclear plant, so building them to 100% put radioactive material around them is absolutely stupid, when the same people are scared of one nuclear plant blowing up 39 years ago.
Dude, the places that measured 50x the normal amount of radiation aren't measuring 50x the amount right now. I'm aware that coal adds radioactive material to the air, but that's just not relevant to the topic. But I'm tired of explaining that, have a good one.
I consider it relevant when the topic is germans being scared of radioactive fallout replacing nuclear with coal.
Then you're still entirely misunderstanding the point.