655
Cyclist dies
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
655 points (94.8% liked)
People Twitter
4812 readers
568 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This post appears to show that they're arguing that nuclear bombs "aren't that bad", as it's missing the important context that they're actually talking about the safety of nuclear power — or, rather, they're arguing that nuclear power isn't as dangerous as people might think — by using the lingering radiation from the nuclear bombings as an example.
I want to be clear that I'm not arguing that their argument is sound, but this post is bordering on disinformation.
ok... so that just shows they're idiots. there was not much radiation because most of it was scattered EVERYWHERE. and the radioactive material was very shortlived. Chernobyl is still very hot, especially in the immediate surrounding areas and nothing like after being nuked as the radioactive material left behind is very long lived, thousands of years will have to pass without a major clean up operation to become safe to live there.
I live thousand miles and almost 40 years away from the Chernobyl disaster. And still we have to test and dispose boar meat regularly because of over the top Caesium-137 polution.
And if that's the case, one should explain why that is rather than trying to twist the truth to fit a narrative.
I agree.