Sex with Bloodsuckers is back on the menu blyat!

After the vit D dosages undercalculation becoming worldwide standard, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

I'll have to watch this later. But yeah, there's a lot of nuclear panic that was helped along by lobbyists for competing industries. Same old song and dance that's been the case since at least the age of robber barons. NIMBYism is pretty strong with this stuff, though, too.
I'm of the opinion that civilization really suffered from the overreaction to some meltdowns.

Alright, I watched it. So it's possible that regular, low doses of radiation reduce the rates of cancer. Interesting. Maybe it triggers the immune response and the immune response finds growths that they wouldn't otherwise.
I saw a headline about covid vaccines having a similar effect on cancer.
We naturally have lots of cells "go rogue", but they're routinely destroyed before they become an issue. Anything to increase the rate of the body's detection (and destruction) of these cells reduces the rates of cancer.

>>4104
>I saw a headline about covid vaccines having a similar effect on cancer.
don't worry about that, they omitted PRRAR and other autoimmune trigger structure-like degraded protein garbo messing things up even on cellular metabolism level in the long term

Nuclear energy isn't a problem just don't stare at the sun
>>4095
You naturally produce vitamin D when you go out into the sun, you only really need to supplement it in the winter when you are less exposed

>>4120
>You naturally produce vitamin D when you go out into the sun
Trading skin cancer for the good amounts sucks

>>4096
>I'm of the opinion that civilization really suffered from the overreaction to some meltdowns.
I think it's because the average norm associates nuclear with nuclear bombs and Chernobyl only served to reinforce the stereotype. So they think nuclear reactor = giant nuclear bomb.

the psyop has been a combination of
- "nuclear waste? What they heck do we do with that"
Meanwhile dumping tons of plastic which will never be recovered into landfill and polluting the water with teflon products.
- "Nuclear is not safe"
Which is more or less true. If a country falls apart or gets buried in corruption then the nuclear infrastructure won't be maintained as well leading to actual dangers. The Chernobyl incident wasn't just some chemical spill train-wreck.

I think nuclear reactors should be built but only if the facility is built with the philosophy of "this is guaranteed to blow up eventually".
Above all, don't build it in the middle or right next to the damn city. Oil refineries typically aren't built near cities, why the hell would a bomb be built smack in the middle of one? Maybe even put it all underground so that when it melts down the damage doesn't spread nearly as much.
Instead of trying convince people who are rightfully worried about constructing a bomb within their range that things won't go incredibly wrong this time because its NPP or whatever, just build it in a way that the only way you'd know it exploded is through the news even though it's not even an hour of a drive away from you. I don't care about any "no no its fundamentally safe", Chernobyl wasn't built for the purpose of being a bomb either.

>>4170
Part of the problem is undoubtedly poor science communication and media dramatization of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuclear reactors fundamentally cannot explode like nuclear bombs. Their enrichment level is too low for them to have a runaway fission reaction that results in anything like a nuclear bomb. They can only explode for two mundane reasons: steam boiler explosions, and unvented hydrogen gas explosions. Chernobyl had a steam explosion and a hydrogen gas explosion. Fukushima had a hydrogen gas explosion.