Avatar

Miles O'Brien

SARGE@startrek.website
Joined
0 posts • 1.6K comments

Senior Chief Petty Officer. Starfleet is in my blood, and I’ve spent my entire adult life in service to boldly going.

Keiko and Molly are my favorite humans, but Transporter Room 3 will always be my favorite.

Just don’t ask who what’s in the pattern buffer.

Direct message

Honestly I’m hoping for Rapid Unplanned Disassembly the first time it hauls his dumb ass into the air.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Damn, I guess I either have some lifestyle changes to make, or I’ve got to tell my wife I’m actually homosexual.

Because I’m not cutting my hair.

Although, I do like to feel pretty sometimes, so maybe it just knows something I don’t yet?

permalink
report
reply

And nobody suggested it did.

But the argument of “it’s more unsafe” doesn’t apply, that was my whole point.

If one thing is less unsafe than another, why the fuck WOULDN’T you want to switch the the DEMONSTRABLY LESS UNSAFE THING

permalink
report
parent
reply

The safety aspects alone SHOULD be enough to convince people, yet here we are.

The difference between nuclear-power- related disasters and fossil fuel related disasters is astronomical.

And honestly the amount of radioactive isotopes that get spewed out from burning coal day in day out for decades on end absolutely dwarfs the amount of radioactivity released from nuclear disasters.

permalink
report
parent
reply

video posted Jan. 1st 2025

8000000 likes

permalink
report
parent
reply

generates about a truckload a year (20-30 tons) of spent fuel

Is that spent fuel or just waste in general? I have seen “20 tons” used for both here and there, and there’s a big difference between them IMO.

Fuel is much more dangerous than, say, a piece of equipment that was exposed to something, but both will be stored as “nuclear waste”. Not that I’m saying the equipment is “safe” but the likelihood of a disaster occurring because a barrel of irradiated equipment busted open vs a barrel of spent fuel…

permalink
report
parent
reply

If we would adopt nuclear power generation at large scale world-wide, we would deplete our scarce uranium probably in a few decades, long before oil

Tell me you don’t understand the energy density of nuclear fuel without telling me…

permalink
report
parent
reply

A lot of comments here are displaying their ignorance of nuclear technology.

Keep eating up the oil company talking points, I guess. “hey guys remember those nuclear meltdowns from outdated reactors that had all kinds of things going wrong because of poor design and decision making, most of which is no longer an issue? Yeah things blow up so better keep chugging away at those fossil fuels while we sabotage any investments into renewables”

I mean goddamn, the “worst” disaster in the USA was a big nothing burger that was sensationalized by newspapers that knew how to sell a headline, and oil companies that knew how to leverage any sort of negative press to their advantage.

When the fallout from nuclear disasters doesn’t come close to the amount of radiation out off by burning and refining fossil fuels, there is no argument.

permalink
report
reply

Oh look, another armchair expert going in about how nuclear is a waste of time and effort, literally using the same argument that oil companies have been using to keep nuclear away.

“oh it’s so sooper dooper dangerous, you should invest in renewables” lobbies the shit out of nations to keep wind and solar projects from taking off

permalink
report
parent
reply

“I was just doing my job” is an excuse that I thought we figured out, as a planet, was bullshit in the 1940s.

Set a trap for whoever comes to haul things away.

permalink
report
reply