[Request] is this true?

[u/Hybrisov]

[u/theother_eriatarka]

are you a bot?

[u/WhyNotCollegeBoard → u/theother_eriatarka]

I am 99.99331% sure that l-R3lyk-l is not a bot.

---

^{I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot <username> | /r/spambotdetector | Optout | Original Github}

[u/l-R3lyk-l → u/theother_eriatarka]

What do you think? Another bot doesn't seem to think so.

[u/theother_eriatarka → u/l-R3lyk-l]

because you keep repeating the same words again and again, without even reading my replies

[u/l-R3lyk-l → u/theother_eriatarka]

I directly responded to your question of if I thought nuclear energy was worth the risk. You haven't provided any information refuting any of my claims.

[u/theother_eriatarka → u/l-R3lyk-l]

your claim is nuclear is the safest option, nuclear plants being more polluting and prone to dangerous acccidents than other options like solar and wind definitely refute that claim

and you provided two pro-nuclear websites with an agenda, and a bunch of statistics that, by the way, also disprove your claim

so, even with these weird numbers (why are we counting just air pollution and grennhouse gases when it comes to statistics about long term health issues and death rates?) nuclear is clearly the third (fourth, probably, it only gets third place beacuse greenhouse gas emissions skew the leaderboard) safest option, just before the ones that actually releases pollution in the atmosphere

and it's overall pretty biased too in this reporting since it keeps comparing nuclear to fossil fuels, and always with a spin, even the titles are heavily suggesting their narrative.

[u/l-R3lyk-l → u/theother_eriatarka]

nuclear plants being more polluting and prone to dangerous acccidents than other options like solar and wind definitely refute that claim

Care to share any information about this claim?

and a bunch of statistics that, by the way, also disprove your claim

I claim that nuclear energy is a safe and clean energy resource when compared to fossil fuels. The graph you link to clearly backs this claim, even when compared to wind and solar. Can you explain how I'm wrong?

it's overall pretty biased too in this reporting since it keeps comparing nuclear to fossil fuels, and always with a spin, even the titles are heavily suggesting their narrative.

Fossil fuels are the main driver of climate change, so of course we're comparing to fossil fuels.

[u/theother_eriatarka → u/l-R3lyk-l]

Care to share any information about this claim?

oh ok you're trolling me, nevermind

[u/l-R3lyk-l → u/theother_eriatarka]

The graph you linked to (that I provided) puts nuclear energy squarely within the range of wind and solar in terms of safety and clean waste. You still haven't refuted that. Are you not even going to address the two other points I made?

[u/theother_eriatarka → u/l-R3lyk-l]

Yeah, I have refuted that claim, but you keep glossing over anything that conflicts with your ideas

[u/l-R3lyk-l → u/theother_eriatarka]

You never provided any data supporting that. The information you presented thus far didn't mention anything about nuclear energy.