this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
473 points (99.2% liked)

Science Memes

19671 readers
3193 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 13 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

Could you imagine a world where we first used atomic power for good and not evil?

[–] Emi@ani.social 18 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

I don't know history of uranium very much but wasn't it first used to paint ceramics and later radium for glowing watches? Uranium bombs were made later probably after it was used to generate power. But I wonder what our world would look like if there was not as much scare of nuclear power. Perhaps bit like fallouts world? We still have some time left to 23rd October 2077 thankfully.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 16 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

The first man made reactor (there's an extinct naturally occurring one) was created in 1942 as part of the Manhattan project to create the first bombs. So we really did speed run the tech tree for bomb on that one. The first nuclear power plant was in 1951.

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 18 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

First use: glowing paint
Second use: cancer

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

if there was not as much scare of nuclear power.

I was pro nuclear until solar became cheaper than nuclear but I think if there was less scare about nuclear, there would have been more Chernobyls. That happened because of thinking it's completely safe.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago

I was pro-nuclear until Georgia Power stuck me with the bill for Plant Vogtle 3 and 4.

(Or rather, I was pro-nuclear until shortly after construction began on a 7-year plan that ultimately took 15 years, when it started to become clear that gross incompetence and corruption was going to make it an expensive debacle.)

Nuclear power from Vogtle 3 and 4 costs 16¢ per kWh (according to the linked document), by the way, compared to less than 0.1¢ per kWh expected by OP's comic.

[–] MrQuallzin@lemmy.world 13 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Chernobyl happened through the incompetence of leadership, not because they thought it was "completely safe".

[–] MajinBlayze@lemmy.world 15 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It's a good thing leadership incompetence is something that only ever happens once

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 2 points 57 minutes ago

And only in USSR!

[–] SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org 5 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Incompetence AND overconfidence, cause those reactors were the latest generation and considered completely safe.

[–] MrQuallzin@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

I'd sure hope that the latest generation of a technology would be considered safe. That's generally how things work. And then when accidents occur, we learn and make things safer the next time.

As to them considering it completely safe, I'd love to read about that if you have sources. Cause I doubt that they thought it couldn't fail.

[–] Railing5132@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

The watches were radium, not uranium.

[–] drolex@sopuli.xyz 2 points 21 hours ago

That world, that wonderful utopic world... we could weaponize it!

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Not really. It's not economical and never has been. Civilian use of nuclear energy has only ever been a cover for nuclear arms development.

[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.today 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

people down voting you haven't considered the cost of dealing with the waste. Consider how long and expensive Hanford Washington cleanup is and how much damage it's done to the environment around it. Then there's Fukushima Japan. The damage will be dealt with for a 1000 years. And the reactors that don't break still have so many spent rods and other waste that can't just be thrown away. The best idea was to store it in the bottom of old mines but nobody wants it shipped over their backyard to get it there. It's a dead end.