It's a secondary effect of having emotionally abusive cats, eheh.

Take it easy buddy, I was just kidding.

Don't worry, my cats are exactly the same. They also don't give a damn about you.

I have a Timex Computer 2068, a ZX Spectrum clone made my Timex Portugal. My dad bought it sometime in the 80s. I still turn it on from time to time, mostly out of nostalgia. That one is the oldest in my house. I was too young to remember it being bought but it had to be some time between 1985 or 1987.

I also have the first model of the European Sega Master System made in 86 or 87 but I bought it second hand less than a year ago.

There's a difference in something being not perfect and being fundamentally flawed. My confusion is because you perfectly verbalized why I think it's flawed.

I could understand being in favor of using nuclear temporarily until renewables are more reliable. I don't agree but I understand the thought process. It's a calculated risk, an acceptable gamble. But being aware of all the issues with nuclear and still be in favor of it long term, in my opinion, doesn't make sense.

Mind you, I'm not trying to attack you, I'm genuinely intrigued and curious.

That's not how fusion works...if it even worked already.

Those health issues while being a problem are in no danger of killing humanity. Wether they affect hundreds, thousands, even millions.

ONE really bad nuclear disaster can make a whole continent uninhabitable.

The risks are on totally different magnitudes.

There's always a way to fail. Always.

There are no unsinkable ships. No matter how safe the Titanic is, keep enough of them on the sea and one will eventually sink the way least people expected. If life on Earth depends on a Titanic never sinking...we're fucked eventually.

Life on Earth depends on no more than a couple on nuclear plants blowing up catastrophically.

I agree with everything you say. It really is spot on. What I don't understand is how, with your awareness, do you still consider yourself pro-nuclear. Honest question, I really am curious.

That...makes no sense...

Dude, you realize a nuclear meltdown releases far more nuclear poison than a nuclear bomb. It's not about the immediate destructive potential.

A nuclear winter would last at most a decade or two due to the dust thrown into the atmosphere by the explosions. A disaster like Chernobyl, while not even close in terms of destructive power, had the potential to release enough radiation to leave half of Europe uninhabitable for centuries, maybe even millenia. Chernobyl is still dangerous to this day while cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving.

And to think you could just abandon a nuclear power plant safely...

You realize used nuclear fuel is extremely hot and still radiating heat and has to be cooled for a long time. You abandoned one without safety measures and the pools cooling the used fuel would just boil and evaporate. The water gone would no longer shield the radiation and you'd have a ton of radioactive material shitting poison into the atmosphere and meltdown.

Some people don't know shit about nuclear power and like to act condescending "it's not like a nuclear bomb". No, it's far more dangerous. And all it takes is a couple of really bad accidents to ruin the planet. And Murphy's law tells us those improbable accidents will happen eventually. That means with nuclear power, quick or slowly we are walking towards the abyss. When we reach it we fall and there's no way out.

No, definitely a loving symbol.

PS: I had to explain the tattoo to my cute innocent girlfriend. I think something died inside of her (not me).