this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
305 points (94.5% liked)

Uplifting News

15100 readers
1820 users here now

Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.

Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SARGE@startrek.website 86 points 1 week ago (6 children)

A lot of comments here are displaying their ignorance of nuclear technology.

Keep eating up the oil company talking points, I guess. "hey guys remember those nuclear meltdowns from outdated reactors that had all kinds of things going wrong because of poor design and decision making, most of which is no longer an issue? Yeah things blow up so better keep chugging away at those fossil fuels while we sabotage any investments into renewables"

I mean goddamn, the "worst" disaster in the USA was a big nothing burger that was sensationalized by newspapers that knew how to sell a headline, and oil companies that knew how to leverage any sort of negative press to their advantage.

When the fallout from nuclear disasters doesn't come close to the amount of radiation out off by burning and refining fossil fuels, there is no argument.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 62 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Yeah things blow up

I would stop them right there and ask when the last oil spill was.

It was last month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 27 points 1 week ago

Even without oil spills. The fossil fuel method of dealing with waste is to vent it into the atmosphere. Nuclear only does that when something goes very wrong, and even then it causes significantly fewer fatalities.

You could have a Chernobyl every single day and still kill fewer people than coal and oil.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 10 points 1 week ago (6 children)

The safety aspects alone SHOULD be enough to convince people, yet here we are.

The difference between nuclear-power- related disasters and fossil fuel related disasters is astronomical.

And honestly the amount of radioactive isotopes that get spewed out from burning coal day in day out for decades on end absolutely dwarfs the amount of radioactivity released from nuclear disasters.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why do you think that those against nuclear energy are for fossil fuels? My building has solar panels, and backup power comes from either wind turbines or the hydraulic dam down the river.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

The overwhelming resistance to nuclear is pushed by people who want us to stay on fossil fuels, and the number of people suggesting renewables usally state their preferences in the comments alongside their criticism (whether the criticism is valid or not).

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

the "worst" disaster in the USA

The 3-Mile Island incident hit two weeks after The China Syndrome hit theaters. (A movie about a runaway nuclear meltdown.)

Otherwise the story would have been, "A tiny poof of radioactive steam got loose, everything was handled quickly and perfectly, no big deal, and back to you Tom (Brokaw).

[–] expr@programming.dev 16 points 1 week ago (15 children)

Yep. So much of this shit from "environmental activists" that have no fucking clue how any of this works. It's been shown time and time again that nuclear is the answer for base load energy requirements with minimal environmental impact.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Katzimir@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Transmutation is not new technology. It has always been too expensive to be used on an industrial level. I dont think that has changed. also by no means does it reduce the cost of dismantling and securing npp sites. Dont be fooled :/

[–] sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You seem to know stuff.

Why don’t we take “depleted” fuel and use it in a low power atomic power plant? The rest radioactivity can be burned off just like their main radioactivity right?

There should be a solution to burn them further down and generate electricity with it.

Or do they lose the properties to burn them?

Thanks

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Is there any source with any real information? This one is just bullshit.

[–] richtellyard@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Here's a more measured take on it, particularly the Update section - though it's written by the company creating the long-term waste repository in Switzerland so there's some obvious bias.

It appears the modeling/simulation code Transmutex developed is heavily based on the open-source Geant4 toolkit.

[–] Libra@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You lost me at this:

For this transmutation Transmutex proposes using a particle accelerator, probably because the promoter of the idea is a former engineer at CERN,

Yeah it's definitely not that the only reliable method we have of knocking protons off of atoms involves either a nuclear reactor or particle accelerator, dude is just bringing his old job with him cause he doesn't know any better. Right.

[–] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

No, as non-experts, we must dismiss the knowledge of experts because their approach is not non-magical pseudoscience bullshit that consists mostly of evocative imagery.

I don’t need no boring particle accelerator! I want an atom smasher that’s been combined with cutting edge AI and the latest in superconducting magnet technology to tame matter down to the subatomic level so it can shoot a laser made of protons into radioactive materials to fundamentally alter its elemental properties so it no longer emits ~(as~ ~much)~ radiation!

[–] Libra@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

Indeed, this is like the techbro approach to nuclear reactors, which seems like the worst of all possible worlds: all buzzwords and bullshit hiding barely-concealed scams about shit that can absolutely kill you.

load more comments