this show destroys earth

[Anonymous No.11282986]

thanks, HBO, for running this show! you guys single-handedly put out the crucial piece of propaganda that killed the one solution to the climate emergency and solidified the climate apocalypse. normies are now forever against the only thing that has a chance. Great work! Thanks!

[Anonymous No.11282994]

>>11282986
the growth mongers did that
piss off shill

[Anonymous No.11283002]

You make it sound like they didn't do it on purpose. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11284285]

One of the best shows of 2019.

[Anonymous No.11284499]

>>11282986
no it just made me not want communist bureaucracy

[Anonymous No.11284523]

>>11282986
The upfront costs are too expensive anyway. The only reason France invested heavily in nuclear is because of French pride not wanting to rely on oil from other countries to power their shit (just like US payed tons of money to go to the moon to show off to the Soviets). Otherwise nuclear is too expensive to build and maintain and the entire mess with nuclear waste is icing on the cake.
>inb4 b-but muh IV generation nuclear reactors
Even more upfront costs, which means even less likely for someone to invest on them.
Renewables have become so cheap that nuclear isn't worth it anymore.

[Anonymous No.11284526]

>>11282986
/tv/->

[Anonymous No.11284546]

>>11284523
truth, even france is shutting down reactors in favor of renewables, they currently plan to shut down 15+ over the next 15 years.

[Anonymous No.11284550]

>>11282986
At least it made for some decent memes.

[Anonymous No.11284585]

>>11282986
t. doublegrug

The show is a critique of post-truth politics, not nuclear power. If anything, it goes out of its way to get the point across that it's not nuclear power, but harebrained apparatchiks who are responsible for the disaster, and that nuclear reactors are A-OK as long as you tell the ideological hacks to fuck off and listen to the scientists who actually understand how they work.

[Anonymous No.11284594]

>>11282986
>MSM and entertainment media industry = shills
wow, who would have thought

[Anonymous No.11284741]

>>11284523
It's only expensive in western countries with all their shitty regulations that drive up costs. China is building plenty and can even finish building European first of a kind reactors before the eurofags even put fuel into their core

[Anonymous No.11285122]

>>11284499
That's the other thing it is propagandizing against and that is necessary to save the world.

[Anonymous No.11285132]

>>11284741
>shitty regulations
ya thanks for the input bud. the only thing standing between some fucking inbred alcoholic moron and me are the regulations. so thank god for regulation (and maybe you should too).

[Anonymous No.11285145]

>>11284546
>trusting government schedules that cover more than their term in office

[Anonymous No.11285148]

>>11285132
>Argues that nuclear is bad because it's expensive
>It's expensive because of regulations
>therefore it's good that it's regulated
Rethink that one anon.

[Anonymous No.11285153]

>>11285148
You're a fuckwit.
Its' expensive because its tough to make it safe enough that literal retards like you can't irradiate everyone.
Now, piss off.

[Anonymous No.11285154]

>>11284523
Uh huh. That's why a bunch of countries have to import energy from France.
The truth is that it is not too expensive. Even though it is taxed to hell and back and has many nuclear specific regulations, it remains profitable. The french plans to shut them down are not based on profitability, instead on the fact that the plants are getting too old as they have been in use for many decades. If France shuts them down without building new plants, it will cause an energy problem in Europe which will lead to increased reliance on coal and oil and it will also hit hard on French government tax revenue.

[Anonymous No.11285166]

>>11285153
>Its' expensive because its tough to make it safe enough that literal retards like you can't irradiate everyone.
Nuclear power is the saftest energy source. It's not perfectly safe, but in terms of kilowatt hours generated per injuries and deaths (and yes that includes radiation and cancer related deaths from Chernobyl disaster as well as deaths from Fukushima disaster) it is the safest, even beating out solar and wind power.
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
In terms of climate impact it is also one of the best.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf
I have also read many studies relating to it's general overall environmental impact excluding climate impact, and it is true that historically nuclear energy has been very problematic for local enviroments especially near mining sites, today nuclear power is the least enviromentally harmful.

[Anonymous No.11285167]

>>11284741
I suspect that the problem in Europe is not so much with the nuclear safety regulations.
The costs are so high because the building schedule keep being extended and faults keep being committed by the contractors. But this kind of thing happen a lot with other public construction projects, like airports and museums and such.
I think the builders don't care because they get paid more for their mistakes and the politicians dont care because it's not their money.

[Anonymous No.11285172]

>>11285166
thats nice, sweety
but we were talking about regulations.
do you have anything to say about regulations?

[Anonymous No.11285174]

>>11285167
That's a problem with really any energy source. Even wind and solar require a great deal of expertise and our closely managed by governments which makes competition difficult.
It is really regulations and nuclear-specific taxes that are holding nuclear power back.

[Anonymous No.11285183]

>>11285172
Yes, that nuclear power would be much more profitable, and it would be very profitable to construct new plants, if it were not for the excessive nuclear specific taxes and unfair regulations. Now, a better solution to stripping nuclear power of regulatory oversight would be to have similarly high standards for other energy sources to make them compete on an even playing field, as well as obviously lowering and rationalizing the taxes on nuclear power. When nuclear specific taxes are accounted for, nuclear power is very profitable. But those taxes remove most of that profitability and economic viability.

[Anonymous No.11285190]

>>11285183
meh. I cant stop you. Have fun irradiating the planet.

[Anonymous No.11285205]

>>11285190
But as I discussed, nuclear power is safe. It is the safest and most environmentally friendly. It is merely held back by misguided and misinformed attempts by governments to stifle it. Nuclear power will not "irradiate" the earth, that doesn't make any sense. Read some more and educate yourself!

[Anonymous No.11285210]

>>11285205
ya meth heads claim meth is safe too
as I said, I can't stop these fucking frothing at the mouth psychotic, energy glutton CONSUUUUUUUMERS, so do whatever you like.

[Anonymous No.11285213]

>>11285210
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf

[Anonymous No.11285219]

>>11285213
I simply do not believe that a growth monger is capable of making rational decisions.

[Anonymous No.11285221]

LOL (((MAX ROSER)))
AGAIN!!!
That's a good one

[Anonymous No.11285224]

>>11285213
What's with you guys and your obsession with turning the earth into a toxic steaming shit heap?

[Anonymous No.11285226]

>>11285219
Although it is true that our current society will likely experience some form of... backlash... due to it's generally unsustainable nature: Continuous growth is invariably inevitable as long as humankind is not wiped out as evolution dictates it to be so. Those who reject growth and choose stagnation will simply be replaced genetically and culturally by those who expand. The only alternative to growth is conflict, decline and/or extinction. There is no stagnation.

[Anonymous No.11285228]

>>11285224
Turning it into a toxic steaming shit heap by reducing the amount of toxic shit that is created? You are an ignorant fool who does not understand how the world functions.

[Anonymous No.11285229]

>>11285226
>Continuous growth is invariably inevitable
OH YOU ARE A FUNNY ONE

[Anonymous No.11285231]

>>11285228
Ya bud
EROEI
>WAHH I DONT WANNA KNOWW

You people are literally a bunch of fucking clowns at this point

[Anonymous No.11285244]

>>11285226
>Continuous growth is invariably inevitable as long as humankind is not wiped out as evolution dictates it to be so. Those who reject growth and choose stagnation will simply be replaced genetically and culturally by those who expand.
Jesus. God help us! This absolute lunatic cult is literally in power!!

[Anonymous No.11285253]

>>11285226
>Continuous growth is invariably inevitable as long as humankind is not wiped out as evolution dictates it to be so. Those who reject growth and choose stagnation will simply be replaced genetically and culturally by those who expand. The only alternative to growth is conflict, decline and/or extinction. There is no stagnation.
That is actual religious mumbo-jumbo, you know? It's not based in fact, or science. It's a fucking creed.

[Anonymous No.11285268]

>>11285190
>dismissive without any counter argument
just admit you got btfo'd lol, not taking a stand, just calling out a sore loser

[Anonymous No.11285552]

Radiation affects humans much more than most life forms. There were some casualties during the initial disaster, but currently, the exclusion zone is functionally a wildlife sanctuary.

[Anonymous No.11285560]

>>11285552
>Radiation affects humans much more than most life forms
Wrong. The correct statement is
>Radiation is less dangerous than humans to some animals

[Anonymous No.11285571]

>>11282986

That only means that Russia and China will soon take the lead in the nuclear market.

[Anonymous No.11285576]

>>11282986

Because ecologist recieve a ton of money from the oil industry to bash its only realistic competitor.

[Anonymous No.11285590]

>>11284585
This.
Have you even seen the show, OP?

[Anonymous No.11285602]

>>11284585
>>11285590
I haven't seen the show and no stake in your argument, but an explanation what the show is or isn't really about doesn't refute him:
The effect is derived from how the show is being interpreted by the masses upon watching, not by what was intended or what was said or any "smart mans interpretation."

[Anonymous No.11285615]

>>11284585
The Chernobyl disaster happened because of human error.
Scientists and technician over emphasize safety by design, and fail to consider behavior-based safety. The crew that day were had inadequate experience, was misinformed, rushed and had poor management in general.
Heinrich's law:
>If a workplace tolerates small mistakes and inconsequential near-misses, then a major incident is inevitably going to occur.
Even if the AZ-5 button worked properly, and reactor 4 did’nt explode that day. If you have incompetent personal who ignores regulations and casually disables safety mechanisms, a major nuclear disaster would have only been delayed. No amount of over-engineering makes up for human incompetence.

If anything, It’s BECAUSE of the scientists’ obsession with technical details that the disaster happened.

Also, the show is entertainment garbage. It has a Mary Sue character, and fails to capture the true nature of Soviet propaganda. But that’s beside the point.

[Anonymous No.11285629]

Bridge of death is a urban myth and never happened.

[Anonymous No.11285658]

>>11285615
Do you really think normies would care to see why this happened and not just blame it on nuclear energy being bad?
And yes it is entertainment, the actual footage is much more depressing
https://youtu.be/FfDa8tR25dk

[Anonymous No.11285659]

>>11285560
Both statements are correct.
Among other things, radiation affects animals with longer life spans more than animals with shorter ones. And human's have long life spans.
My point is, nature can perfectly adapt and thrive in a high radiation environment, e.g. exclusion zone.
The biggest environmental impact of nuclear energy is that it will aid the expansion of humanity, but that's not really a /sci/ debate.

[Anonymous No.11285679]

even the fucking show constantly pushes the idea that any other power plant design was better than the one used. The show talks about incompetence not about the dangers of nuclear.

[Anonymous No.11285687]

>>11285602

the show is so fucking obvious with its theme that to infer anything else you gotta be
a) an actual mouthbreathing retard
b) someone who is already against nuclear and won't change its stance (basically, a variation of item (a))

[Anonymous No.11285818]

>>11282986
>he thinks chernobyl didn't make everyone realize they wanted a corechan of their very own

[Anonymous No.11285871]

>>11282986
Yep, let's build more fancy water boilers.

[Anonymous No.11285957]

>>11285132
>Water is good for plants. Let's drown them

[Anonymous No.11286516]

>>11282986
The show LITERALLY states at the end about how the issue was human error and how modern nuclear energy is very safe.

[Anonymous No.11286587]

>>11285576
>Because ecologist recieve a ton of money from the oil industry to bash its only realistic competitor.
Source ?

[Anonymous No.11286591]

>>11284499
That was totalitarian pseudo fascist bureaucracy.

Communism doesn't have bureaucracy.

[Anonymous No.11286973]

>>11285687
Or they skipped the last episode, in which the supergenius MC literally calls nuclear reactions “beautiful” as the camera lingers on his face.

[Anonymous No.11287037]

Hopefully fusion will pan out sooner than the cynics expect-some cool stuff happening with sheared flow z-pinch and pulsed FRC stuff

[Anonymous No.11287078]

>>11282986
If anyone's takeaway from Chernobyl was "nuclear power bad" they aren't worth listening to in the first place
The entire show was focused on the systemic issues in the USSR that specifically led to Chernobyl which had almost nothing to do with the plant itself

[Anonymous No.11287092]

>>11284741
Maybe it could also be because Europe is extremely dense while the majority of China's population lives in a few cities on the coast, don't you think?

[Anonymous No.11287893]

>>11287078
maybe this is a conclusion that people who have at least a few undergrad courses in science would arrive at, but i’ve had about a dozen conversations with normies about the show and all of them seemed to have a few words to say about the politics surrounding chernobyl but go on and on about “OMG they got blasted by radiation and their skin fell off, SO DANGEROUS!” crap

[Anonymous No.11288102]

>>11282986
Are you literally retarded?
It very, very, very explicitly explains that nuclear is very safe and that the accident was basically caused by commie retardation.

[Anonymous No.11288106]

>>11287092
Shitty argument because the nuclear plants were also built on the coast.

[Anonymous No.11288141]

>>11287893
Well, it is dangerous. What you need to do is give these people a quick rundown on the thousands-of-times-more-deadly fossil fuel pollution and drilling accidents.

[Anonymous No.11288199]

>>11282986
5 TERATONS

[Anonymous No.11288229]

>>11288199
Iirc, the “5 megatons” thing was in the real-life report, and the context makes its inclusion reasonable. Of course there would never be even a single megaton explosion under the conditions created by the Chernobyl disaster, but the damage done by an uncontrolled nuclear accident could have had environmental and human consequences *practically equivalent to* a 5-megaton explosion. Why use tons of TNT as a measurement instead of something more comparable to radioactive smoke? Because the USSR was obsessed with nuclear weapons, meaning this shorthand would actually be taken seriously by non-scientist officials.

If the report just gave real-life numbers and an examination of radioactivity, Gorby might’ve fallen asleep while reading it. The scientists wrote out the only thing that could galvanize USSR politicians – propaganda.

[Anonymous No.11288235]

>>11282986
Yeah. If some TV show has lasting influence on policy making, might as well just call it a day now.

[Anonymous No.11288236]

>>11282986
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGlJgU9x8tM

[Anonymous No.11288627]

>>11284523
Your idiotic position assumes the following which are all false.
>cost is the only relevant factor
>there is no such thing as a publicly owned utility
>renewables have solved their intermittency issues
>nuclear waste is difficult to deal with

Read a book

[Anonymous No.11288641]

>>11287092
Maybe you could check what you're saying before asserting it like a well-known truth, don't you think ?

And yeah, taishan is on the coast.

[Anonymous No.11288643]

>>11288641
>over 100
China has more than double the population of Europe

[Anonymous No.11288688]

>>11285190

You literally said it's about regulations then when he refuted it went back to safety. You are truly pathetic.