• xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    137
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    “I shot a guy in the head, but then a different guy moved into the house where he lived, so it wasn’t that bad?”

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Mr Musk was talking about nuclear power with the former president when he said people have an unfounded fear of nuclear electricity generation. It is the “safest form of electricity generation”, he argued.

      “People were asking me in California, are you worried about a nuclear cloud coming from Japan? I am like no, that’s crazy. It is actually, it is not even dangerous in Fukushima. I flew there and ate locally grown vegetables on TV to prove it," he said during the interview on his social media platform X on Monday.

      • ceenote@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        96
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sensible people: Nuclear power is quite safe, likening it to a nuclear bomb isn’t really a valid comparison.

        Elon Musk: Nuclear power is quite safe, not all that different from nuclear bombs, which get a bad rap.

        • Fosheze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Don’t know about solar but I know nuclear at least used to be statistically safer than wind per MW just due to injuries during construction. Gotta remember, it takes a lot of solar or wind to make the same amount of power as a nuclear plant and that means a lot of construction work. But I also haven’t seeen those stats for a while so it may have changed.

          Nuclear is very safe assuming you don’t build the plant in a tsunami prone area which also happens to be practically on top of 4 different fault lines.

          • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            I was bullish on nuclear for a while but having looked at how expensive it is to build out I don’t think it really makes much sense anymore

            • Fosheze@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              ·
              3 months ago

              It really depends on the location and situation. With the new generations of reactors they can also do things like seawater desalination with the waste heat alongside power production. You also have situations where the nuclear waste heat is used to heat entire communities far more efficiently than could be done with electricity. There are also many places where solar and wind just aren’t practical for various reasons. In those areas nuclear may be a good option for base load power. Nuclear is also still far less environmentally destructive than hydro.

              Yes, nuclear power plants are henoiusly expensive and there are definitely areas that they shouldn’t be built, but they do still serve a purpose in certain areas. Most of the flack nuclear gets is just because most of our reactor fleet was built durring the cold war. New technologies can acheive far more with nuclear power far more safely and cost effectively than those old reactors.

            • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              What about the conversion of coal fired power plants to nuclear ones? I’ve seen that proposed quite a bit.

              • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                Wouldn’t only the turbines and cooling tower be reusable? I thought the hard part was the reactor itself.

                • Fosheze@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Even then I don’t imagine it would be easy. Anything in a nuclear plant needs to be built to an extremely exacting standard that I’m pretty sure old coal powerplant components wouldn’t be. I can’t see how you could convert a coal plant into a nuclear plant without having to completely rebuild everything.

            • Pennomi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              Most of the cost is regulatory, and for good reason. I’d like to think that the new small modular reactors will allow us to reduce cost but it’ll take a lot longer than we have available to us.

        • zephorah@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Here’s the argument. The byline every conservative I’ve talked to falls back on is “there’s no way to recycle the materials and they don’t last that long”. “Where’s my recycling?” “Same with wind turbine blades”.

          You start to notice the repetition of the same statements across republicans when you talk to any number of them.

          The repetition is a bit creepy, but this is how conservative talk radio works. They are fantastic at mobilizing their peeps and this is part of how they do it.

          • Fosheze@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            I don’t know about solar panels but fiberglass wind turbine blades are kinda recyclable. Fiberglass can be ground up and mixed into concrete to vastly improve the strength of that concrete.

      • flauschtier@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        Deutsch
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Although he is far from a great person and his comparison with Hiroshima and Nagasaki is at best tactless and a downplay of a humanitarian catastrophe caused by the US, he got a point there…

        Nuclear energy is by far the cleanest and one of the safest forms of energy generation. We have a problem with the spend fuel, but that is mostly due to the „not in my backyard“-Attitude and outdated informations regarding long term storage. Nuclear radiation is scary but handling it in a responsible way is much safer than perceived. On the other hand, the huge number of respiratory diseases and accompanied deaths are much more diffuse and not directly attributed by the public to fossile fuels. I think „Kurzgesagt“ has a really good video series covering nuclear energy.

        It is a little sad that with all the necessary (and important) regulations the building process of a nuclear power plant is really long and public support (at least in Germany) is non existent. It could have covered our butts during the transition from fossile fuels to renewables.

      • slingstone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The part that is problematic is lower down on the article:

        Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed but now they are full cities again," the multibillionaire owner of Tesla, SpaceX and X said.

  • norimee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    3 months ago

    Did he just say the Atomic bombs were not that bad??? The Fucking ATOMIC BOMBS?!

    Can we just drop one on his house now?

    • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is the same guy who told Steven Colbert he wants to nuke the Martian poles.

      To which Colbert replied, “Are you SURE you’re not a supervillain?”

      That was in 2016.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        To be fair, that’s not totally outlandish and no one lives on Mars. It’s a fast way to inject heat. Is it actually a good idea with the radiation? Idk. I’ve seen it proposed for terraforminf before though.

  • Dorkyd68@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    3 months ago

    I listened to a bit of the interview and it’s just insane nonsense, trump is ALL over the place with his topics, calling folks losers as a child would. But what was really odd was trump had this lisp almost like he had too much saliva in his mouth. It was gross and resembled that of an old man rambling incoherently

    • Beryl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The lisp is probably loose dentures. After all, Trump IS the oldest presidential nominee in US history. Come to think of it, that explains the incoherent ramblings also.

      • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, the loose dentures have been noticable since his first campaign, there’s just so much other wretched shit going on with him that people don’t notice as much.

        • Spot@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          3 months ago

          I just don’t get how I, a poor, was able to finance with Care Credit and time out my visits to have implants put in, so i could fix my grill. He couldn’t come up with a grift for someone to pay for his?? Which reminds me… these chompers should finally get paid off this year!🥳

  • tibi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    3 months ago

    “The injured were sprawled out over the railroad tracks, scorched and black. When I walked by, they moaned in agony. ‘Water… water…’

    I heard a man in passing announce that giving water to the burn victims would kill them. I was torn. I knew that these people had hours, if not minutes, to live. These burn victims – they were no longer of this world.

    ‘Water… water…’

    I decided to look for a water source. Luckily, I found a futon nearby engulfed in flames. I tore a piece of it off, dipped it in the rice paddy nearby, and wrang it over the burn victims’ mouths. There were about 40 of them. I went back and forth, from the rice paddy to the railroad tracks. They drank the muddy water eagerly. Among them was my dear friend Yamada. ‘Yama- da! Yamada!’ I exclaimed, giddy to see a familiar face. I placed my hand on his chest. His skin slid right off, exposing his flesh. I was mortified. ‘Water…’ he murmured. I wrang the water over his mouth. Five minutes later, he was dead.

    Everywhere, as far as my eyes could reach, all the houses had collapsed, all the trees and electric poles had been broken down. About two kilometres away, around the spot which later proved to be the explosion centre, thick dark smoke whirled up from a sea of yellowish dust.

    I remained stunned, completely stunned. The next moment I heard a faint groan, then disconnected words that seemed to come up from the bottom of the earth: “Yuko . . . dead . . . I’m dying . . . don’t stay …” It was my wife, but it was not anything like a voice uttered by a human being: it was a voice squeezed out from the last bit of life in death’s grip. “What? Be strong now! . . . Where are you? Where are you?” As if in reply, a pile of tangled timbers moved with a creaking noise. Bleeding all over, my wife stood upright, with our two-month-old baby tightly in her arms.

    All around us we heard shouting, groaning, cursing, voices calling father, voices calling mother, voices in search of brothers and sisters. All over the central part of town flames were shooting out as if the earth’s crust had been ripped open. And these sorely burnt men and women all in stark nakedness! It was as if our corrupt world had come to an end, giving way to hell. My wife was most painfully wounded. On her whole body were stuck countless fragments of glass, large and small, that reflected pallid lights like a glittering spearhead of a demon. She could see nothing.

    I took my wife on my back, and held the baby on my left arm. We walked three hundred metres, stepping barefooted on the debris and broken sheets of glass that went to pieces under our weight, and took refuge on a sand bank in a river where the tide had ebbed. Here we joined hundreds of suffering people, and the sound of the frantic search of parents for their children was heartrending enough to make one giddy.

    But it wasn’t that bad, right?

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Oh wow. They have the full book there?

        This is from the book Hiroshima by John Hersey. I remember reading it in high school. It’s a great book.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, the bombs’ effects were horrific. It’s absolutely amazing that even that level of devastation was able, in the balance, to save lives.

        • Taniwha420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          The prevailing sentiment was that the Japanese would not surrender until their home islands were totally conquered. Their government was in the process of preparing the civilian population to fight to the death. (Research the invasion of Okinawa if you want to know what a US invasion of the main island would have been like.) In a version of the trolley dilemma, the American rational was that the loss of life in two horrific attacks that would shock the Japanese into surrender was less evil than the alternative of invading their home islands.

          I’m not making that argument, or saying there were no alternatives, just that the Americans were weighing the loss of life (including civilians) involved in a nuclear bombing against the loss of life (including civilians) in invading the islands.

          Notwithstanding other unthought of solutions, the strategy worked, and the apparent alternative would have been brutal.

  • norimee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    3 months ago

    Just some numbers to put into relation :

    | Casualties |

    Hiroshima:- 90,000–166,000 killed

    • 80,000–156,000 civilians
    • 10,000 soldiers
    • 12 Allied prisoners of war

    Nagasaki:- 60,000–80,000 killed

    • 60,000–80,000 civilians
    • 150 soldiers
    • 8–13 Allied prisoners of war

    Total killed (by end of 1945): 150,000–246,000

    Source: Wikipedia - Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Hiroshima:- 90,000–166,000 killed
      80,000–156,000 civilians

      And modern nukes are SIXTY TIMES more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        Not just that, but far more of them. And also missiles that consist of dozen of smaller warheads inside

        And these missiles can travel to literally any place on earth, no matter where they started, as they follow a sub-orbital trajectory into space

    • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      3 months ago

      And then, in the aftermath of the decision to wipe those cities off the map, the United States said “That worked great. Let’s make thousands more of those.”

      This country is vomitous.

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        Well, the US and every other 1st world country. Nobody wants to be the guy without nuclear weapons when the nuclear war starts - the ones that can’t defend themselves would be easy first targets. That’s what the cold war was all about - 2 countries, each just waiting for the other to drop the bomb they’re sure is coming eventually.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          It works until it catastrophically fails. That’s the gimmick. You can partly offset the risk by bringing the overall nuke count down to dozens or hundreds per country, but only partly. And how many dictators want to create a small nuclear arsenal these days? It’s the only way to keep others out. Which brings the risk back up.

  • Codex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 months ago

    Great, really love to see the consent being manufactured for a lil nuclear war! Just a limited engagement bro, just a couple of nukes bro!

    Damnit, it’s tough but I just don’t think dying in a nuclear holocaust is worth it to know that those dumb fucks will also suffer and die.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      As Americans get more belligerent and less rich, it’s only a matter of time before we roll out our archaic nuclear arsenal and see what still works.

      After all, better to launch a nuclear strike on our enemies than let them win

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Oh, no, they’re gearing up to make new ones. Russia has worked to undermine nuclear treaties, and looks poised to reverse the progress we’ve made on getting rid of these damn fool things. The United States will go tit for tat.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Russia has worked to undermine nuclear treaties

          I don’t think Americans get to talk shit about undermining confidence in anti-proliferation treaties. Between Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, Americans consistently violate their own terms and conditions whenever it is even momentarily advantageous to them. Russians aren’t the only ones walking away from the table after what Bush pulled with Curveball and the way Trump tore up the Obama deal with Iran.

          The United States will go tit for tat.

          The US already has more nuclear weapons than every other country (but Russia) combined. I believe we already have north of 4000 warheads, which is absurd considering the estimates to obliterate the entire planet come in at under 300 successful strikes.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            You don’t have to ascribe any altruistic features to the United States on this one. The US faces no existential threat to a conventional military. The other countries on its continent would never be capable of invading and conquering the US, and an oversea invasion is logistically impossible.

            Nukes are the only real existential military threat to the US. It’s therefore in our best interest that nobody has them. If that means getting rid of our own, then so be it. The US is perfectly capable of gunboat diplomacy without them.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Musk: They all got to make new better houses too since we opened all that space so there was profit and improvement! We really did them a favor to be honest.

  • jlow (he/him)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yeah, because that’s how you measure human tragedies, in buildings. Not loss of life, the aftermath, multigenerational trauma or anything else humane. But not unexpected from two of the most disgusting people in the western world, so 🤷‍♀️

    • TheDudeV2@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is similar to what kept coming to mind while listening to it last night:

      “This is a former POTUS and the richest guy on the planet, and they’re both so… dumb”.

      Blows my damn mind man.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    So, at one point we wanted Tesla cars, powerwalls, and tiles. All of that went right out the window. So two cars and full solar setups for three houses…poof. Unfortunately we still have Starlink due to work requirements, but as soon as we don’t need it, it is going right back out.

    • LallyLuckFarm@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      The company who installed our solar array had a massive year on battery backups starting the day they secured an alternative to the powerwall. Our coordinator called personally because our file had a note that said “will install battery bank as soon as it won’t benefit musk” and we got in before the backordering started.