this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2026
369 points (88.0% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

42012 readers
3810 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Danarchy@lemmy.nz 68 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When you burn the remains of these ancient life forms it releases their ghosts and that’s what kills so many when they breathe haunted air

[–] Forester@pawb.social 46 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 34 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Absolute numbers are meaningless. It needs to be weighted against how much electricity was produced with each.

(And why is solar not mentioned? Plenty of solar installers die from falling off of roofs and whatnot.)

[–] Forester@pawb.social 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] valgarf@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

On the site there is also a direct comparison: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

Grouping Hydro with other renewables is not very nice for wind and solar, which are pretty safe - with the added benefit of being cheaper than nuclear power.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] abbiistabbii@piefed.blahaj.zone 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Genuinely curious as to how and where we got the 140k deaths from renewables? It doesn't appear on the paper you linked but it cites the structural collapse of a Hydroeletric Dam in china which caused 230k deaths.

I'm curious where you got the renewables figure from, is it from dam collapses (which are structural failures rather than a product of the power source) or is there some sort of issue with wind turbines where they magically sprout legs and march into Cities like Godzilla with PMS?

[–] Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You havent been attacked by a solar panel? Theyre awfully vicious in my area /s

Real answer is probably engineering issues, DIY, and a healthy dose of propaganda-number-fudging

[–] Forester@pawb.social 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I left solar off cause its the safest only deaths are falls and accidental electrocutions unless you count the odd deaths from being hit in the head or crushed.

[–] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So the solar panels do attack people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Forester@pawb.social 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

The chinese claim only 26k deaths some estimates place it at 260k deaths i'm not being exact its a ballpark. No one source tracks all deaths from renewables or fossil fuels or nuclear. 52 dams collapsed not one.

structural failures rather than a product of the power source

and what do you think collapsed the dams if not the power source?

Its mismanagement and failure to properly engineer for the situation on hand. Water is heavy the built weak dams to generate hydro power. They had a cascade of containment failure events. likely ~130k people died directly from this event. The other ~10k is a rough estimate on other deaths from similar incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (7 children)

so... hydroelectric power stations collapsed, thus renewable energies like wind turbines and solar power are bad?

[–] mirshafie@europe.pub 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Wind and solar aren't bad, they're approximately the same as nuclear. You'll find them at the bottom of this table.

Energy source Deaths/TWh
Brown coal 32.72
Coal 24.62
Oil 18.43
Biomass 4.63
Gas 2.82
Hydropower 1.30
Wind 0.04
Nuclear 0.03
Solar 0.02
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] wraekscadu@vargar.org 19 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Nuclear is cool. With proper regulation, it's amazing!

BUT, it's not what we must be focusing on right now. Renewable sources of energy are safer and much MUCH cheaper to implement than nuclear. Also, renewables don't require decades to come online.

So, "why renewables? Just go nuclear brooo" is a bad bad argument, likely made in bad faith by OnG companies to delay implementation of renewables.

The goal should be "how do we go from the status quo to a non GHG emitting source of energy generation as fast as possible?".

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 1 month ago

I live by a bunch of nuclear plants. One day, I got a text alert from the government saying something was going on at one of the nuclear plants. I decided I was probably already going to die and the went back to watching porn on the toilet. I will have my dream of being an environmental telling skeleton.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] untorquer@quokk.au 13 points 1 month ago

Yeah there's a reason I'm leaving the energy sector. The choice to use fossil fuels for grid in the last 50yrs has been and will continue to be a purely political one.

[–] Diddlydee@feddit.uk 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

A cow is more likely to kill you than a shark (on land).

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you get into a pool with a cow, its not going to be nice to you either.

[–] AcidBurn@retrofed.com 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What if you put a shark and a cow in a pool?

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You get arrested for animal cruelty

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] leftascenter@jlai.lu 4 points 1 month ago

In the majority of cases, the cow is more dangerous. Only 3 species of sharks are dangerous out of more than 500.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zloubida@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Yeah nobody ever died here (an uranium mine) and you absolutely don't need any fossil fuel to make it works.

Nuclear energy is better than fossils, but it's far from green.

[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Nuclear causes the fewest deaths out of all available energy sources, except solar, which is a tiny bit lower in that regard. Both wind and hydro have a higher death toll, with wind being just slightly above nuclear, and hydro being a lot higher (about 40x more deaths).

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

Usually I wouldn't cite this source, but in this case their data matches other, more trustworthy ones, and is the first that shows up in search engines.

[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Nuclear is very green.

Source: Watching too many Simpsons episodes in my misspent youth

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are the fossil fuels used to create wind and solar power are also unavoidable?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

I'd be willing to put money on the amount of deaths from fossil fuel power generation related accidents (mining coal isn't exactly the safest job) is higher than the rest on its own. Even before the millions who've had their lives shortened by the pollution.

[–] Admetus@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Quoting 5k deaths when Chernobyl was a single incident probably contributing to most of them.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Most of the renewables count is one dam that failed in China too.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Forester@pawb.social 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

The only reason it killed so many was the poop grade soviet response. Men were cheaper than machines. Saving face was more important than casualties. Russia still employs blocking brigades in Ukraine for the same beleifs the USSR mindset never died.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Thorry@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Only 30 people actually died as a direct result of the Chernobyl disaster. It's very hard to know how much indirect deaths however. Or the overall impact on health for people in Europe. Estimations range from 4000 (WHO) up to 16000. No idea what OPs numbers include or don't include.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I never even considered that nuclear power isn't renewable until now. 🤣 Can't make more radioactive rocks if we run out.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 8 points 1 month ago

Can’t make more radioactive rocks if we run out.

Well ... unless you use your uranium reactor to create plutonium... But, you're right -- even then, it would eventually run out. So fission power isn't renewable.

Fusion power, though... If you can make a viable fusion reactor ecosystem that can use regular ordinary hydrogen as its input fuel, then that's at least psuedo-renewable. Yeah, eventually you'll have converted so much hydrogen into helium that hydrogen might start running low. But I'm guessing you could power 100 earths for 10 billion years before you used even half the hydrogen available.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Breeder reactors don't create fuel. They convert not-quite-usable isotopes into usable isotopes.

The process is analogous to "cracking" crude oil, converting heavy, less-usable components of the crude into lighter, more valuable fuels.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Incidentally, I live in Sacramento, in the California Central Valley, which is desert. Recently, its gotten up to 117° here (which is still low compared to Death Valley).

Solar is awesome.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Does that include like building the hoover dam or what?

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Oh look, yet another person with an opinion on the LNT model for radiation exposure. As a safety professional, let me explain in really basic terms.

Everyone knows the model is pretty shit for long-term exposure to small doses. This isn't news, and hasn't been new for the past half century.

Similarly, we all know that chemical exposure levels are, for the most part, entirely bullshit. The exposure lengths are often based on 40 years of 40 hours a week, which is almost never true, and are even then very conservative.

The problem is that you can't get accurate data. You can't expose a couple of hundred people to hazardous conditions for decades, just to get better data. Everyone bitching about LNT for radiation or all sorts of chemical and biological exposure limits is overlooking one key detail.

We don't have a better model. We can't develop a better model in any remotely ethical way with current or near future technology either.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Its the best model we have it may not be 100% accurate but it is better than nothing and assumes any radiation exposure is carcinogenic. However in gen pop (read healthy adults) our natural repair mechanisms are generally apt to repair damage caused by exposure to doses less than 5mSv/y

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1350448715000086

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] GargleBlaster@feddit.org 5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Sooo you base this on an opinion piece disguised as journal article in a low impact journal by a guy that has, let's say interesting views on radiation damage and global warming.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Leviathan@fedinsfw.app 4 points 1 month ago

How many cases of cancer are caused by burning fossil fuels and micro plastics from tires? I bet a fucking dick load.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

All the nuclear stuff happens in one place, with a few people minding it. But they do have to be super careful and know what they're doing.

And if there's a critical flaw in the reactor design (looking at you Chernobyl) it can go very very wrong.

Renewables are all spread out, and a lot more people manage it for the power output.

That also means a lot more people have power-related jobs.

Fossil Fuels, Methane (Natural Gas) and Coal are just ugly all around. But they have really, really great lobbyists.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The RBMK design was outdated 10 years before construction.... but yeah lets unironically compare a model T Ford with no automatic controls slop welded together with shit tolerences and barely any control systems to a modern car with sensors and with safety features because they are both examples of a car.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›