DuckRabbit

The psychology denialist attitude among exact science bros isn’t a tendency to “only value the facts”. It’s a tendency to ignore a huge chunk of “facts” because they don’t fit a psychology denialist worldview.

It’s intellectual poverty.

19/19

Risk assessment is a *psychological* assessment.

Nobody would avoid cars because of the (albeit large) risk of an accident, yet every airplane disaster understandably questions airplane safety.

18/

They do not notice how countries go from solid democracies to science illiterate disasters waiting to happen, as they barely leave the confines of their academical or corporate ivory towers.

17/

They do not notice how commissions charged with evaluating safety, are full of nuclear physicists (who already have an innate love for the plants they have to weigh in on).

16/

The economical, political, psychological, and tactical forces at play are being *ignored* by pro nuclear guys, because in their “exact sciences” woolly concepts like “psychology” and “biased reasoning” seem nonexistent.

15/

It is like a blackjack player betting on the next card, expecting past results (=no accident YET) to predict the next decade.

14/

Which is why nuclear ends up failing ultimately when the shit (finally) hits the fan. As with Chernobyll, 3 Mile Island, Fukushima,… almost with Zaporizja,… and certainly with the *next* disaster.

13/

Both make *political* sense.

And the main reason politicians in power often suddenly defend nuclear as a “TINA” option: There Is No Alternative.

12/

This is why politicians *love* to platform pro nuclear people. Because it allows them to kick that can down the road.

Hiding behind nuclear as a way to postpone investment in renewables, too, is a popular political “bait & switch”.

11/

Decommissioning Main article: Nuclear decommissioning At the end of a nuclear plant's lifetime, the plant must be decommissioned. This entails either dismantling, safe storage or entombment. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires plants to finish the process within 60 years of closing. Since it costs around $500 million or more to shut down and decommission a plant, the NRC requires plant owners to set aside money when the plant is still operating to pay for the future shutdown costs. 58] Decommissioning a reactor that has undergone a meltdown is inevitably more difficult and expensive. Three Mile Island was decommissioned 14 years after its incident for $837 million. 59] The cost of the Fukushima disaster cleanup is not yet known, but has been estimated to cost around $100 billion. 60]

Half a BILLION to decommission a plant. (Source: wikipedia)

3 Mile Island: 0.837 Billion
Fukushima: 100 Billion

Now *what* happens when a plant *needs* to get decommissioned, but the country in charge has an economical malaise? Or is going through a war?

10/

This made it easy to *build* nuclear powerplants, and leave the maintenance and decommissioning to later generations.

This started the *myth* of “free energy”.

Which is why the costs are never EVER decently calculated by pro nuclear guys.

9/

One of these “unknown unknowns” is linked to politics. War, economical hardship, changing attitudes towards science, and dumb decisions, jeopardize *any* enterprise. The main difference is that nuclear is by definition a “long game”, and politics isn’t.

8/

None of the arguments I bring up are “absolute”, (except for the “cost” argument). Which is why people who overvalue *exact science* tend to ignore them.

They are an assessment of how complicated these matters are, and recognise both “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”.

7/

“I am well versed in these matters” says the cellular biologist, the astrophysicist, or the philosopher,…

Ignoring the blatant fact that risk assessment is NOT an exact science, and their grasp of economics is laughable at best.

6/

The most obvious and blatant issue is that *most* pro-nuclear guys (*always* guys, btw) are never willing to address or incorporate the facts brought by their detractors, yet gladly claim arguments of *authority*.

5/

But I have seen one too many “pro-nuclear” guys claim bs, then shown wrong one too many times.

“Chernobyll or similar can’t ever happen!” a few days before Fukushima.

“International treaties protect us!” until Putin simply ignored them all, and openly refused to recognize int’l observers.

4/

…or fearing how Trump can *eliminate* science funding, disaster control services, int’l treaties & regulations out of *spite*, yet some people feel nuclear safety is absolutely “under control” in a well managed modern, democratic, civil society.

3/

I’m willing to concede that people end up “pro nuclear” because they weigh certain arguments differently.

Eg “risk” is a heavily debatable point, different to people living closer to Chernobyll, closer to the attacks on Zaporizja,…

2/

“Nothing you’ve written is remotely correct btw”,…

…when *MOST* of my points aren’t even up for debate 🙄 and DON’T rely on (always debatable) stats & numbers

…while not even giving ONE counterarg.

BlueSky’s equivalent to the pigeon shitting all over the chess board strutting as if they won 🤦‍♂️

1/

Which part *isn’t*?

I’m not your Googleboy, but I’m prepared to show you the receipts 🙄

Maybe *you* should actually talk to an oncologist (which is where I got *that* info)

I literally saw a post two weeks back in which a guy with two jobs was flagellating himself because he was short on rent, lamenting that had he donated plasma more, maybe his rent would be on time. This system is deeply fucked. Earth is a pleasure cruise for 1000 people and we're all just the staff.

“Earth is a pleasure cruise for 1000 people and we're all just the staff.”

Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts

Homeland Security wants Social Media sites to expose Anti-ICE Accounts!!!!

The Government is trampling on our CIVIL LIBERTIES!!!!!

#ICE

#Epstein

#EpsteinFiles

www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/t...

A central figure in our government. Shameful shit.

What’s more: the Nuclear Lobby has been a “useful idiot” to climate change denialist/minimalist politicians, resulting in *postponing* necessary investments in renewables.

12/12

And I *do* understand the appeal. I, too, am a science nerd, and love everything nuclear/particle physics (LHC, CERN,…).

But the risks, implications & costs do not warrant its hyped up bullshit claims of “safe” & “cheap” energy.

11/12

Renewable energy is both much more decentralised, flexible, less risky, and less sensitive to political & other manipulation. But since the 1950s, Nuclear has been a *political* propaganda tool.

10/12

10/ There is a growing body of evidence pointing to the longterm effects of the Chernobyll disaster (thyroid cancers, esp). If we *ever* were to have this kind of disaster closer to Europe’s great population centres, we might never again consider nuclear a *viable* option.

9/12

9/ Most *democratic* nations are also irredeemably secretive when it comes to these technologies, including but not limited to secrecy in decisions that should be open to debate, manipulating communications, downplaying risks, etc…

8/12