252
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 86 points 1 month ago

I know certain sentiments are coming, so I'll put this here: Three Mile Island wasn't the unmitigated disaster that fearmongers would have you believe. It was an ultimately harmless accident that was highly publicized because of poor communication and irresponsible sensationalist journalism.

More on the topic: https://youtu.be/cL9PsCLJpAA

[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 48 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It was actually a success story. It failed safe, as designed.

Unfortunately "The China Syndrome" really pumped up anti-nuclesr sentiment.

TMI was the opposite of Chernobyl.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Heh, you see my posts? That movie came out not 2-weeks ahead of 3-Mile. Freaky isn't it?

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago

Yep. And underscoring that more than almost anything else is the fact that the TMI facility continued to operate without incident for forty years after that accident.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Posted this earlier:

A poof of radioactive steam let loose. That's it, the whole incident. People freaked out on March 28, 1979.

In totally unrelated news, The China Syndrome, a popular movie about a reactor meltdown, came out March 16, 1979.

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 1 month ago

"Nuclear" sounds scary but it doesn't have to be and generally isn't. There are currently 94 active nuclear reactors in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States

IMHO, the correct take on " uses enormous amounts of energy" is "yes, we do need to invest more in renewable and clean energy". Anyone who didn't have their head in the sand could have known that last century. This is only a problem now because our political leaders have failed us, year after year, decade after decade.

[-] Fondots@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Small addendum, there's 94 commercial reactors that are generating power for the grid

But there's a few dozen more active nuclear reactors that exist for things like training and research.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_research_reactors#United_States

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

And then there's like 80 reactors moving around the world, docking in our ports.

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago

Thank you for the clarification!

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

“Nuclear” sounds scary

Related, unfun fact: MRI used to be called NMRI, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging, because it used the nuclear magnetic resonance phenomenon (literally a nuclear vibe check), but people were so afraid of the word "nuclear" that it was dropped.

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

😒🫸 MRI

😎👉 NVC

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I thought the Netflix show was pretty clear it wasn't as bad as popular history made it out to be.

[-] ano_ba_to@sopuli.xyz 51 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Don't get me wrong, nuclear energy is good. It's just being used to power AI. That's a waste. It's being used so a corporation can profit, not to power homes. It's being used to potentially replace humans, who need less power to function and whose power consumption cannot already be avoided anyway.

[-] MissJinx@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A nuclear plant is not a bad thing, that's one of the cleanest eneegy sources BUT being Microsoft I'm glad it's at least on an island

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

It's on an island, yes. In a river, ten kilometres from a dense urban region.

And it's the site that an American president came closest to dying in a nuclear explosion! (I mean that's not why it's notable, but it's a fun fact anyways.)

lol uh… you know about the location and history of that facility… right?

[-] SuperIce@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

It's a nuclear power plant that provided clean and safe energy for many decades.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

While that is true, it was also the site of the worst nuclear disaster on US soil.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not scaremongering, and I support nuclear power. It’s just a bit darkly ironic, imo.

Edit: I gotta go down these Wikipedia rabbit holes you guys are pointing me towards, because I’m clearly somewhat misinformed here. Seriously, thanks for sharing!

[-] SuperIce@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

It was partial meltdown and the failsafe worked. No one was injured or had their health negatively affected by the incident. The worst nuclear disaster still had less negative effects than even a single modern coal plant does.

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Calling it "the worst nuclear disaster" is not just incorrect but stupid. Just off the top of my head, I can name a worse reactor accident and a worse non-reactor nuclear accident on US soil.

SL-1, a low-power reactor in Idaho, exploded because of poor design and human error. An operator retracted the manually operated control rod too far. The reactor went prompt critical, causing a steam explosion, destroying the reactor vessel and killing all three operators. To this day, SL-1 is the only fatal reactor accident on US soil.

Cecil Kelley, a worker at Los Alamos, was fatally irradiated when a plutonium reclaimer machine went critical. The machine contained an aqueous mixture of plutonium slag of a much higher concentration than it should have, causing an excursion when the stirring was turned on. He died two days later. His autopsy was performed by one Dr. Lushbaugh, who removed several organs for experiments without permission.

TMI had zero fatalities, minimal release of radiation, and no measurable effect on health. Area residents were exposed to less radiation than the yearly background dose.

[-] MissJinx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Well no I don't since I'm not american

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There is nothing clean or safe about three mile island. The place had a meltdown and created tons of nuclear waste. Next you’ll be trying to tell me Fukushima and Chernobyl were safe, clean, and cheap.

[-] tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 month ago

Why don't you get back on Lemmy after you've actually looked into TMI

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

TMI had zero fatalities, minimal release of radiation, and no measurable effect on health. Residents of the area were exposed to less radiation from the accident than the yearly background dose.

Some layers of safety failed, but the rest did their job. That's why we call it an accident and not a disaster. The plant continued to operate for decades with no issues. The only reason it's so prevalent in the public consciousness is because of faulty reporting and irresponsible, ignorant people (like you) parroting the first thing they hear from sensationalist media.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

A nuclear plant is not a bad thing

This specific one famously is.

[-] MissJinx@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Lol I didn't know that

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Three mile island is outdated tech.

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago

Are there any nuclear power plants in the US that aren’t?

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Cool. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

[-] burt@programming.dev 10 points 1 month ago

I live near enough to TMI that a catastrophic event would be severely detrimental to my health, but I see this as a good thing (if you can call AI good). Clean, safe energy, and jobs for people in an area that needs jobs, win-win.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 10 points 1 month ago

The fucking timeline we’re in

[-] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 8 points 1 month ago

This is just begging for a kernel memory space access joke...

[-] HowManyNimons@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

ELI5 please why they don't just put their server farms in a desert, roofed with solar panels and a big-bum battery?

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

The Susquehanna River that Three Mile Island sits on offers virtually unlimited fresh cold water for cooling the server farm.

[-] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

Fucking up the temperature downstream; global warming baby! But who needs that ecosystem? It's survive or die, and that includes the beavers! Down with trees, up with fleas(markets)!

[-] SARGE@startrek.website 9 points 1 month ago

Total ecological collapse is a small price to pay to boost shareholders' wealth by 0.1%!

line must go up

[-] aaaaace 1 points 1 month ago

And it flows into Chesapeake bay after passing by Peach Bottom nuke plant, where unannounced inspections have revealed everyone sleeping.

At one time, farmers used to grow popcorn on 3MI. Post-incident, pets were born with deformities on the York County side, harder to tell with the humans there.

We won't go into the time I drove into Indian Point during the day and found no one in attendance. No guards, gates open, etc.

I drove all over the plant. Took a while to find anyone, and that person was annoyed at my needing to make a delivery, but there was no one at the dock.

I'm not on either side, but if you read an article about nukes, someone paid for it, pro or con.

It's not that simple.

[-] SuperIce@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Because you want data centers to be closer to the users for speed.

[-] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 month ago

Transit latency is a tiny tiny fraction of the round trip time for AI processing tasks. Until AI tasks are in the order of milliseconds instead of seconds it's a rounding error.

[-] HowManyNimons@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Doesn't that depend on the application?

[-] el_eh_chase@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Knowing the incompetence of Microsoft is making me re-think my pro-nuclear stance...maybe it should be banned.

[-] QuentinCallaghan@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago

This thing can't continue.

[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 14 points 1 month ago

Why?

It had a proper "fail-safe" incident. It functioned as intended.

[-] QuentinCallaghan@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago

Yes, it's safe and all but using a whole nuclear power plant for AI is a waste of resources.

[-] superkret@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago

They intended for it to partially melt down?

[-] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago

Don't twist their words. The plant, when faced with a meltdown incident, was able to shut down safely with no injuries or detrimental effects to anyone, as intended. The plant then operated safely without incident for another 4 decades.

[-] Mwa@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

ah yes nothing will go wrong no meltdowns whatsoever

[-] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

You can see the cooling towers from the highway. It's not secluded.

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
252 points (100.0% liked)

Not The Onion

12225 readers
683 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS