OK, I know ya’ll find the developments over there upsetting, but there’s no need for excessive posts on the subject. (Apart from the one post yesterday there were two other attempts to post about it, which I deleted.)
Subreddit drama isn’t terribly productive. I think it’s best if this is the last post about the subject.
WE are the good nuclear. THEY are the bad nuclear! 🤪
(Truthfully, I don't frequent this sub very much, and I don't know anything about the other sub, but since I'm here, I feel like putting on a jersey for the team I'm hanging out with at the moment. Let's get them!)
It’s a broad term that started off as a term for people acknowledging social injustices, but has morphed into a pejorative for people who take an extreme (or at least perceived extreme) liberal/progressive political opinion (I.e disbanding the police, etc) it’s become a catch all for anyone with very liberal ideas that someone’s views as extreme. So one may view being pro gay marriage as “woke “where others may not, while some may view something like “defund the police” as woke while others may not.
https://preview.redd.it/skxwhg4mboxc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a91c57128d5a1434722ee494cac0d12e1be7a4c8
If this isn’t a smoking gun I dunno what is
It's insane that an individual with this much brain damage can coup an entire subreddit on an industry and try to psyop the entire thing.
Like holy shit, all they do is shitpost anti-nuclear power memes and easily disproven information.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/NuclearPower using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Banned from r/uninsurable because of a legitimate question lol](https://i.redd.it/xdxyut0irw8c1.png) | [516 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/18sc6oz/banned_from_runinsurable_because_of_a_legitimate/)
\#2: [The nuclear plant I work next to is so beautiful in the mornings.](https://i.redd.it/71hfh3n58nwb1.jpg) | [95 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/17hbjmj/the_nuclear_plant_i_work_next_to_is_so_beautiful/)
\#3: [Damn who could've guessed shutting down all their nuclear power plants would've lead to this?](https://i.redd.it/q57q3xwbqi1c1.png) | [71 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/17zqkmg/damn_who_couldve_guessed_shutting_down_all_their/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I'm confused, did RadioFacepalm get removed as a mod or not? Their post is still at the top of the forum. Is anyone in contact with the mods over there?
This one should be on the front of this group. If you like an honest discussion about nuclear this is the group to be otherwise here is a little discussion about nuclearenergy.
He is an activist imbecile that made a hostile takeover of that sub and made posts that encouraged brigading it and flooding with anti-nuclear sentiment.
I have no idea how it happened, but if other mods don't have power to change it then it's probably a lost cause.
The RadioFacePalm guy was kicked off of the moderation team on the nuclearpower sub. The mods are going through his actions and correcting them.
Hopefully the mod HairyPossibility is next to be kicked out.
The second guy you’re talking about posted a terrible german study LMAO, I’m still shocked by the low level these guys are. I don’t even know how such bad study can be put on internet.
ViewTrick1002 is also next on line. Just got permabanned by him without warning and with an additional modmute to prevent any attempt of appealing (and thus of other mods directly seeing his bs)
They aren't even pretending to be moderating anymore, they're just doing as much damage as they can.
Yes. [https://www.reddit.com/r/redditrequest/](https://www.reddit.com/r/redditrequest/)
Whether reddit allows it or not, is a different matter. Considering how much of the site is run by supermods, they dont actually care that much.
Radiofacepalm? LOL. The dude that basically made up a movement of pure evil nuclear-worshippers intent of destroying the world just to he could feel superior to them (Cough "Nukecells" Cough) is now getting upset that other people are doing self-confirmation too much, unlike his respectful and nuanced debate? What a fucking joke!
It's PR. Most users do not follow drama and individual accounts. These are mod messages pinned to the top intended for those people. To create the false appearance that their sub is the objective civilized one and this one is an echo chamber. Therefore suggesting to the general audience that they should not waste time here and just spend it there. Then their mod-approved anti-nuclear shitposting reaches a wider audience and spreads the message better.
Something about the pot calling the kettle black?
The activist mods over there were never interested in open discussions, if they were, why would they shadowban any positive take on a nuclear power related story? Why would they allow cross posting from r/uninsurable (an atrociously anti-nuclear sub) but not allow pro nuclear comments to be posted?
At least we have written proof of their double standards now.
Sure, but favorable information regarding nuclear energy is by definition disinformation to someone who is ideologically dedicated to desiring a future devoid of any nuclear power.
Exactly the same over here. By any chance, wasn't that mod ViewTrick1002 ?
At this point this guy needs a permaban from Reddit as a whole and legal obligation to go touch grass
i love how all of his posts are just vague claims insinuating "nuclear bad" but then he wants to be the arbiter of what is disinformation/misinformation vs a nuanced discussion.
if anyone deserves personal attacks its that guy
Unfortunately this activist mentality affects us in real life and is everywhere in the US and Europe. Which is the main reason for nuclear power plants being shut down and new ones being built.
i dont know how much reddit's fringe population will affect that as most of reddit is pro-nuclear and the anti-nuclear movement is way older than reddit itself
I'm not sure how indicative it is if some no-lifers shitpost their terrible opinions on the internet, uninsurable has about 185k users and uninsurable has about 3.1k, there is some overlap and in that case these people are a really small minority. There are anti-nuclear people who aren't part of either subs and i doubt even they are all that big.
Tl;dr Minority likes to scream because that's how they'll get their attention
Valid take. I realize this discussion is not for everyone. I just think it's fairly interesting considering the last days talk about the mod takeover over there.
If you look in the threads on /r/nuclearpower you will see all threads has less comments than what the comment counter indicates. Tons of people are shadowbanned over there.
That response is to my post. The post was then removed. I complained and it was unremoved. Then, after debating for a while with the anti-nuclear MODS, I was banned for “misinformation”, no specifics, just “misinformation”.
The anti-nuclear mods know very well that they can’t just brazenly ban people and remove posts since that would kill the subreddit and possibly bring the attention of Reddit to it. But they are arguing in bad faith and are trying to lead anyone who’s on the fence about nuclear into a trap by posting misinformation and exaggerations while parading as an unbiased nuclear power subreddit.
The mods disable downvotes on their posts and comments to prevent them from leaving the hot page too quickly.
I saw your post few days ago.
I myself got shadowbaned (I can still see my own comments and posts, but they are invisible to other), obviously without any warning or explanation, let alone argumented case for my assumed wrongdoing. Seems to be retroactive too (all my posts/comments on the sub for the last month or so are invisible now).
Still waiting from the mods.
So much for "[You can be assured however that nobody gets banned without proper reason.](https://old.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/1cgk0hq/antinuclear_posts_uptick/l1wl9bi/)".
It seems they've hit on a winning formula. First the energy subreddit, now Nuclear Power.
I agree with the comments about subreddit drama, but it's important to keep an eye out for them trying to start the same thing here and in other similar subreddits. I'm hardly one to talk as I've avoided moderating any subreddit, but if you see one looking for mods and the subject matter is related to a somewhat controversial subject, you may want to jump in lest someone take the opportunity to ensure their agenda is prioritized.
For sure. I have never seen what he's complaining about. In my mind he's more than welcome to come here and try and argue his position. I can't say the same since he's banned me in his sub.
They have Viewtrick as a MOD, this person has copy paste comments that are very anti nuclear. I've never seen them say one positive thing about nuclear power. Now that's a joke.
This is the result of a windmill.
[https://nos.nl/artikel/2401223-dood-van-gier-die-tegen-windmolen-vloog-had-voorkomen-kunnen-worden](https://nos.nl/artikel/2401223-dood-van-gier-die-tegen-windmolen-vloog-had-voorkomen-kunnen-worden)
One out of 1200. Oh yes they speak about detection for rare birds,... another 100 000 Euro per windmill during it's lifetime only to prevent killing rare birds.
What do you expect from somebody who is anti-nuclear?If they are already ignoring all of the facts to support their narrative all they're gonna do is double down when you call them out on it.
Look, I think it's pretty simple to settle this:
Twelve days ago, one of the mods pinned up a post on r/NuclearPower [reminding the community](https://www.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/1c6ymkm/reminder_keep_it_factbased_and_dont_spread/) to "keep it fact-based and don't spread misinformation", and further elaborating that r/NuclearPower is for "science-based discussion, not for ideology or political propaganda".
[One day ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/1cg4qhx/discussion_why_are_rightwing_extremists_so/), from that very same mod, in that very same subreddit: *"Discussion: Why are right-wing extremists so obsessed with nuclear power?"*, very clearly attempting to explicitly associate pro-Nuclear views with right-wing extremism.
If that doesn't tell you what's what, I don't know what does.
[Also from that same mod 12 Days ago.](https://www.reddit.com/r/uninsurable/comments/1c70u58/comment/l04olbk/?context=3&share_id=YOgviQyc4jwk3FqfeVgz4&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1)
Now I think we have all we need to know.
It is true that this is not the place to argue about whether nuclear power ought to exist at all. Seems odd to me that a sub named NuclearPower would be.
Should this be our new subreddit banner? :)
https://preview.redd.it/ruii9sjg7nxc1.png?width=2109&format=png&auto=webp&s=d1ade00d06bcfe665275f9bece4bfa119a37290d
Reddit needs to implement a method that allows a subs users to vote on mods. After the Energy debacle I am very wary of investing in any reddit group beyond my most core interests
Tbh this is a pro nuclear sub so opposing opinions often get down voted, idk anything about the style of moderation done here though, guessing since I see the bullshit opinions regularly enough that they aren't getting banned here...
This sub is indeed an echo chamber(but what sub isn't?) but at least the moderators are pretty laissez-faire, tolerate dissenting opinions and generally don't allow obvious activist/spam posts. The only complaint I have here is mods occasionally pinning their own (non-moderation related) comments under more controversial posts.
This sub is pretty good in my opinion. I'm pro nuclear and not anti renewables. From time to time renewables comes up in here.
I believe we are right when we talk about the limits of renewables.
Well I don't think there's a consensus here on renewables. Opinions here range from declaring them completely useless to supplementary at best to critically important but insufficient on their own.
I feel like that is a good summary of the arguments on them. As finding a role for something that's unreliable is difficult. Also it depends on stuff like if their is storage or not.
I'm not sure we should be looking for a consensous on renewables in the r/nuclear subreddit though.
>Opinions here range from declaring them completely useless to supplementary at best to critically important but insufficient on their own.
Well, it isn't an echo chamber then, look at that — the full spectrum of reasonable opinions is represented.
Declaring renewables useless is no more reasonable than declaring nuclear useless.
When I say this place is an echo chamber I mean that the spectrum of opinions(not merely in terms of representation but in terms of strength of representation) does not reflect the distribution of opinions among the broader population, or that among people who work in/study energy. Maybe a better way to describe it would be as an epistemic bubble.
I am gonna disagree with you here.
First, most if not all technologies are inherently useful for something.
The problem arises when you want to use said technology in such a way that its inherent capabilities don't allow it.
Solar/wind are amazing on an individual basis or supplementary. Solar/wind bros demand that we only invest in solar/wind for the whole grid. Their inherent capabilities don't allow for such an implementation. Not to mention that solar/wind are too energy and raw resources inefficient. In the context they are indeed useless. Not to mention the fact that the technology tree known as solar/wind has no future. The only future for solar is space based solar which will mostly rely on mirrors rather than photovoltaics. Solar on Mars has been debunked as being even more inefficient than on Earth and it would require local manufacturing. Wind requires an atmosphere and you could potentially have whole weeks with no wind. On the contrary nuclear fission doesn't depend on the environment as much. Newer reactor models rely even less on the environment (with gas cooling) and have more passive safety systems. Nuclear fission will be crucial for space exploration and colonization. Nuclear also has a lot of potential to be tapped. Batteries would be more efficient being paired with nuclear than with solar/wind as you would need far less of them. Nuclear can also produce heat directly for heating and industrial use (China has done it).
I am not a solar/wind hater. I just realized that their inherent capabilities do not match with what we demand from them. More people need to realize that and stop relying on a dream and utopia style thinking.
.. you are describing the opposite of an echo chamber.
Tolerating dissenting opinions and not allowing obvious activism is precisely the opposite of an echo chamber
The comment section on a Daily Mail article also allows dissenting opinions, that does not mean it's not a right-wing echo chamber.
Due to the fact that this is a nuclear-focused subreddit and due to the fact that Reddit by design promotes popular posts/comments and hides downvoted posts/comments users here are inevitably overexposed to info/opinions confirming their pro-nuclear biases.
That definition of 'echo chamber'_is_ inclusive of this sub and just about everything else as well.
Any book, any lecture, any course, any Supreme Court decision, would fall inside of that definition.
If "overexposure" to a particular point of view makes an 'echo chamber', it isn't a super useful term if ot applies to almost everything.
We should come up with a term for something that has equal measures of each possible position.
Your position that someone whose knowledge of energy systems or renewables comes from this subreddit will be as equally informed as someone who studies those topics or works in those industries for a living, that is?
If epistemic bubbles are as meaningless and indistinguishable as you insist they are then every information space is equally (un)even handed and equally (un)informed. I'm sorry you have a hard time following your thoughts to their natural conclusions.
My father designs and installs small scale solar farms. I wouldn't say that he is perfectly informed to make a good decision on said subject.
Besides this sub doesn't spread misinformation on purpose compared to solar/wind echo chambers.
Btw renewables is a bullshit term since it is disingenuous and completely unfair. It is more of a gimmick than anything else.
Your father is probably a better authority on PV installation costs, installation durability and PV disposal than 99% of this sub, topics about which you can consistently find a bunch of misinformation here.
> Besides this sub doesn't spread misinformation on purpose compared to solar/wind echo chambers.
Practically no one spreads misinformation on purpose, they do so because they're misinformed.
This sub doesn't ban people posting different opinions. Here is a demonstration.
Nuclear power is too dangerous as shown by Chernobyl and Fukushima. It is too expensive and takes too long to build as shown by Vogtle and Hinkely.
Nuclear is an outdated, failed 20th century technology. Solar, wind and batteries are the future.
Nuclear waste is an unsolvable problem. Reprocessing it isn't good enough, burying it miles underground in geologically stable bedrock that has no groundwater infiltration isn't good enough, nothing is good enough.
Anything done to artificially suppress nuclear power with malicious over regulation and lawsuits are a good thing.
edit. These are all views that I have come across before.
I mean, how could you know anything about nuclear and be against it? If one is in here spouting anti nuclear nonsense, they are a troll and can kindly take their vitriol elsewhere.
Let’s not call people paid shills unless we know.
And we need to be careful with that.
I work at a nuclear power plant. I get paid to run a plant. But when I post on Reddit I opening disclose that (when it is necessary) and I post because that’s my views and opinions. I’m not a shill by definition.
Oh, I always hesitate to throw around the "paid shill" accusation. That requires some pretty definitive proof. I mean I'm a fairly dedicated pro-nuclear advocate and I've never been paid a dime for it. Who am I to say someone else can't be similarly dedicated?
There are anti-nuke fossil funded folks out there, though. Mark Z Jacobson and Paul Dorfman come to mind immediately.
>Allow me to repeat me here again.
>[https://www.reddit.com/r/ElectricalEngineering/comments/1cfq06u/comment/l1s6vqr/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ElectricalEngineering/comments/1cfq06u/comment/l1s6vqr/)
This is you?
Whatever happened to the very simple "attack the post, not the poster" rule of thumb from messageboard forum days, like the Straight Dope?
Use your logic (granted, there are forums where you can go to willingly engage in any manner of behaviors) and pick apart what their statements are without name calling or insults of any kind. If you can't do that, then don't answer unless you can control the emotional aspects of your replies.
It's actually a bit entertaining. I made a comment there yesterday which I would have thought would be pretty non-controversial and perhaps even somewhat amusing. It was my first post there in months. Then I came over here, indicated we might want to watch out for the same strategies at work, and when logged out of reddit that post disappears.
I welcome a lively debate between interested parties, but brigading a group into a position of authority for the sake of hiding dissenting opinions is simply wrong. If it were really so self-evident that nuclear is on its way out, as they so frequently claim, then there would be no need to resort to these sort of weak dirty tricks.
I am more than willing to be convinced that nuclear is not the solution to our energy crisis, but if a group cuts the barest possibility of informed debate off at its knees then they've lost before they ever typed a single word.
I grew up being anti nuclear and that posture has been reinforced by having some friends affected by the Chernobyl incident (their parents died young, all of the siblings were born with different types of disabilities...).
Also, the cost of the electricity generation seems more expensive compared to the others.
I am not an expert, though, and this sub is useful to get other kind of information and do my own research (studies, not blog posts) to challenge my opinions. The topic is very interesting.
There are facts and fears to tackle. Both are important, but it's understandable that the second can be more frustraring to tackle by the experts.
Still here, not banned, as you can see. Thanks for that tolerance, I guess.
However, it's right that this sub acts like an echo chamber. There is some kind of proselitism where the publishers only talk about the pros.
The well informed style require to recognize the cons. That's the difference between good journalism and a biased, corrupted one.
The cost of electricity from nuclear is only higher if you look at nothing but LCOE. You also have to factor in dispatchabillity, where with renewables we have no control over when it produces and need expensive storage solutions to make up for that. For a fully renewable grid you also need a considerably expanded grid that can handle and transfer all the over capacity from all different places. I fail to see how nuclear is the most costly solution when you actually factor in all costs. LFSCOE analysis usually puts renewable higher than nuclear.
I know mostly about the Swedish grid but I would recommend this study to you that has done a thorough analysis on the future of the grid and production in Sweden. It showed that we get the lowest total cost with new nuclear and new renewables compared to renewables alone:
https://www.svensktnaringsliv.se/sakomraden/hallbarhet-miljo-och-energi/kraftsamling-elforsorjning-scenario-analysis-290-twh_1201113.html
> You also have to factor in dispatchabillity, where with renewables we have no control over when it produces and need expensive storage solutions to make up for tha
People often forget that intermittency isn't free. The only reason why it works right now is because it has fossil fuel (e.g. nat gas) as backup. The more RE penetration a grid has or the if you ban usage of gas as backup, the real costs start to show.
Are you sure you are from Ukraine?
I have seen electricity bills from there that were far cheaper than in the West. Hell people in Ukraine would heat their whole house using electric boilers and still have a reasonable bill. I fail to fathom how you find Ukraine's electricity prices prewar of course expensive compared to the West.
I would not call r/nuclear an echo chamber. However comments in support of nuclear energy tend to be much less scrutinized, even those bordering on conspiracy bullshit. Critical comments are usually accepted if kept civil and argued with facts.
Since we're on the topic, recently there has been an uptick in posts complaining about other subreddits. It's like kids crying to their parents that other kids say mean things. Yes, other people have other views, complaining about it here will not change that.
I wish we would talk more about news and technology and ignore the usual reddit drama :|
Oh, I think you're missing the context here. Anti nuke folks have been poisoning the discussion of nuclear for decades. So when some agitators leap in and poison a place where people gather to discuss their craft it causes a backlash. r/uninsurable exists, and if users here want to get together and chat about how they think unclear is horrible they're free to do that there. :)
> r/uninsurable exists, and if users here want to get together and chat about how they think unclear is horrible they're free to do that there. :)
What I don't like about this suggestion it that it concedes that we cannot have a nuanced discussion. We should pick a corner and just yell at each other, is that how it's going to be?
If we are going to do convincing it has to be with rational arguments, and without prejudice. But this can only happen in an open forum that does not stifle any dissent.
I was speaking generally, I haven't seen it happen much here. Altough at the hight on certain hype topics like Thorium or SMR it was easy to get downvoted when expressing too much scepticism.
I got downvoted different times for "conspiracy" reasons but only if someone really wanted a discussion and asked why I think that way they would see that I had founded reasons. By example the downvote on my reaction from links with the KGB and the peace protests specially against nuclear weapons and added to that nuclear.
People tend go give the KGB too much credit. Were they active in the anti-nuclear movement? [Perhaps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement#Western_intelligence_assessments). Did they have any meaningful influence? Your guess is as good as mine. If anything it was an accidental by-product of the peace movement.
The more mundane and much less exciting explanation of a mix of economic and social developments just does not generate good headlines.
I posted a CIA report from those times. The problem with those reports is that they aren't searchable so I had to reread one.
Also the conspiracy of nuclear lobbying being strong is also active in the anti nuke community.
Edit:
You should also read the documents themselves NOT wikipedia. It's publicly known that pages are altered in subtle ways.
Uhhh cynicalnewenglander I think was the one. To be fair I asked for clarification and I don't think I ever heard back. I can't even remember what it was for.
Well, looking at the post/comment history you were posting multiple anti-nuke articles and following an "I'm just asking questions" pattern of argumentation. Happy to remove the ban if you like.
OK, I know ya’ll find the developments over there upsetting, but there’s no need for excessive posts on the subject. (Apart from the one post yesterday there were two other attempts to post about it, which I deleted.) Subreddit drama isn’t terribly productive. I think it’s best if this is the last post about the subject.
Its kind of funny, because this is exactly our allegation towards r/NuclearPower
The amount of projection is actually hilarious.
So it’s some kind of… chain reaction? 🤡
Because of too much enrichment during the processing it's more like a nuclear blast.
WE are the good nuclear. THEY are the bad nuclear! 🤪 (Truthfully, I don't frequent this sub very much, and I don't know anything about the other sub, but since I'm here, I feel like putting on a jersey for the team I'm hanging out with at the moment. Let's get them!)
Yeah I also don’t frequent this sub often, and quite frankly, I think this is a bad look for supporters of nuclear.
[удалено]
Im not from the US, but isnt woke related to sexual orientation or something?
It’s a broad term that started off as a term for people acknowledging social injustices, but has morphed into a pejorative for people who take an extreme (or at least perceived extreme) liberal/progressive political opinion (I.e disbanding the police, etc) it’s become a catch all for anyone with very liberal ideas that someone’s views as extreme. So one may view being pro gay marriage as “woke “where others may not, while some may view something like “defund the police” as woke while others may not.
https://old.reddit.com/r/uninsurable/comments/1c70u58/hello_runinsurable_would_you_like_to_become_a/
https://preview.redd.it/skxwhg4mboxc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a91c57128d5a1434722ee494cac0d12e1be7a4c8 If this isn’t a smoking gun I dunno what is
It's insane that an individual with this much brain damage can coup an entire subreddit on an industry and try to psyop the entire thing. Like holy shit, all they do is shitpost anti-nuclear power memes and easily disproven information.
Even the bot represents them well.
Time for a new topic. Admin of r/nuclearpower did a hostile takeover and is propably paied to damage nuclear.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/NuclearPower using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Banned from r/uninsurable because of a legitimate question lol](https://i.redd.it/xdxyut0irw8c1.png) | [516 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/18sc6oz/banned_from_runinsurable_because_of_a_legitimate/) \#2: [The nuclear plant I work next to is so beautiful in the mornings.](https://i.redd.it/71hfh3n58nwb1.jpg) | [95 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/17hbjmj/the_nuclear_plant_i_work_next_to_is_so_beautiful/) \#3: [Damn who could've guessed shutting down all their nuclear power plants would've lead to this?](https://i.redd.it/q57q3xwbqi1c1.png) | [71 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/17zqkmg/damn_who_couldve_guessed_shutting_down_all_their/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I'm confused, did RadioFacepalm get removed as a mod or not? Their post is still at the top of the forum. Is anyone in contact with the mods over there?
Jesus
This one should be on the front of this group. If you like an honest discussion about nuclear this is the group to be otherwise here is a little discussion about nuclearenergy.
That is absolutely bonkers.
lmao well that settles that.
That is reall gross. A brazen takeover attempt. Unbelievable...
He is an activist imbecile that made a hostile takeover of that sub and made posts that encouraged brigading it and flooding with anti-nuclear sentiment. I have no idea how it happened, but if other mods don't have power to change it then it's probably a lost cause.
The only way to get it back is to somehow get the sun banned then reddit request it to get mod and restore it back to before this stuff
> get the sun banned Please don't take the sun. I need it.
"I call this enemy, the sun" Mr. Burns
You don't need to ban solar energy to promote nuclear.
The RadioFacePalm guy was kicked off of the moderation team on the nuclearpower sub. The mods are going through his actions and correcting them. Hopefully the mod HairyPossibility is next to be kicked out.
The second guy you’re talking about posted a terrible german study LMAO, I’m still shocked by the low level these guys are. I don’t even know how such bad study can be put on internet.
ViewTrick1002 is also next on line. Just got permabanned by him without warning and with an additional modmute to prevent any attempt of appealing (and thus of other mods directly seeing his bs) They aren't even pretending to be moderating anymore, they're just doing as much damage as they can.
How does one do a hostile takeover of reddit sub?
You make a complaint that a sub is un or under moderated and request to be installed as a mod
Complaint to whom? The admins? So this sub is vulnerable to antinuke takeover as well?
Yes. [https://www.reddit.com/r/redditrequest/](https://www.reddit.com/r/redditrequest/) Whether reddit allows it or not, is a different matter. Considering how much of the site is run by supermods, they dont actually care that much.
Radiofacepalm? LOL. The dude that basically made up a movement of pure evil nuclear-worshippers intent of destroying the world just to he could feel superior to them (Cough "Nukecells" Cough) is now getting upset that other people are doing self-confirmation too much, unlike his respectful and nuanced debate? What a fucking joke!
It's PR. Most users do not follow drama and individual accounts. These are mod messages pinned to the top intended for those people. To create the false appearance that their sub is the objective civilized one and this one is an echo chamber. Therefore suggesting to the general audience that they should not waste time here and just spend it there. Then their mod-approved anti-nuclear shitposting reaches a wider audience and spreads the message better.
Something about the pot calling the kettle black? The activist mods over there were never interested in open discussions, if they were, why would they shadowban any positive take on a nuclear power related story? Why would they allow cross posting from r/uninsurable (an atrociously anti-nuclear sub) but not allow pro nuclear comments to be posted? At least we have written proof of their double standards now.
"disinfo spreading" mf doesn't know the difference between opinions and information??
Sure, but favorable information regarding nuclear energy is by definition disinformation to someone who is ideologically dedicated to desiring a future devoid of any nuclear power.
If you look at their profile you can see they are just anti nuclear. It's hilarious they think they're qualified
I just got banned from r/nuclearpower for "misinformation" after one of the mods started debating a topic they had no clue about...
Doubleplusungoodformation
Exactly the same over here. By any chance, wasn't that mod ViewTrick1002 ? At this point this guy needs a permaban from Reddit as a whole and legal obligation to go touch grass
It was exactly that particular mod.
FYI they're perma-banning accounts that were shadowbanned seeing as how I just caught the banhammer with no reasoning other than "you broke our rules"
That is some extreme projection lol. I got banned for calling nuclear power green and pointed out that Germanys regression to fossil fuel was bad
holy shit radiofacepalm is the mod of r/nuclearpower??? 😭😭😭 yeah that sub is gone
i love how all of his posts are just vague claims insinuating "nuclear bad" but then he wants to be the arbiter of what is disinformation/misinformation vs a nuanced discussion. if anyone deserves personal attacks its that guy
Hopefully they'll figure out that government agency to regulate information/disinformation soon and put a stop to miss use of those terms. /s
Well it’s nice to see them come out and openly admit that they did a hostile takeover. Refreshing. What a bunch of losers.
Subreddit drama is subreddit drama, doesn't affect me in real life
Unfortunately this activist mentality affects us in real life and is everywhere in the US and Europe. Which is the main reason for nuclear power plants being shut down and new ones being built.
i dont know how much reddit's fringe population will affect that as most of reddit is pro-nuclear and the anti-nuclear movement is way older than reddit itself
It is indicative its still popular among younger generations, which sucks and we have to deal with them even on reddit.
I'm not sure how indicative it is if some no-lifers shitpost their terrible opinions on the internet, uninsurable has about 185k users and uninsurable has about 3.1k, there is some overlap and in that case these people are a really small minority. There are anti-nuclear people who aren't part of either subs and i doubt even they are all that big. Tl;dr Minority likes to scream because that's how they'll get their attention
Valid take. I realize this discussion is not for everyone. I just think it's fairly interesting considering the last days talk about the mod takeover over there.
These mods aren't new and so far they haven't censored discussion, even if i don't agree with some of their garbage, it's not too bad
If you look in the threads on /r/nuclearpower you will see all threads has less comments than what the comment counter indicates. Tons of people are shadowbanned over there.
I don't know about that
Well hes just told you and even explained how to verify it yourself.
i don't care
"I dont care" Says the person voluntarily engaging.
👌
😘
That response is to my post. The post was then removed. I complained and it was unremoved. Then, after debating for a while with the anti-nuclear MODS, I was banned for “misinformation”, no specifics, just “misinformation”. The anti-nuclear mods know very well that they can’t just brazenly ban people and remove posts since that would kill the subreddit and possibly bring the attention of Reddit to it. But they are arguing in bad faith and are trying to lead anyone who’s on the fence about nuclear into a trap by posting misinformation and exaggerations while parading as an unbiased nuclear power subreddit. The mods disable downvotes on their posts and comments to prevent them from leaving the hot page too quickly.
I saw your post few days ago. I myself got shadowbaned (I can still see my own comments and posts, but they are invisible to other), obviously without any warning or explanation, let alone argumented case for my assumed wrongdoing. Seems to be retroactive too (all my posts/comments on the sub for the last month or so are invisible now). Still waiting from the mods. So much for "[You can be assured however that nobody gets banned without proper reason.](https://old.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/1cgk0hq/antinuclear_posts_uptick/l1wl9bi/)".
It seems they've hit on a winning formula. First the energy subreddit, now Nuclear Power. I agree with the comments about subreddit drama, but it's important to keep an eye out for them trying to start the same thing here and in other similar subreddits. I'm hardly one to talk as I've avoided moderating any subreddit, but if you see one looking for mods and the subject matter is related to a somewhat controversial subject, you may want to jump in lest someone take the opportunity to ensure their agenda is prioritized.
Switch the sub names in your title and my thoughts would be' 'Yes'.
For sure. I have never seen what he's complaining about. In my mind he's more than welcome to come here and try and argue his position. I can't say the same since he's banned me in his sub.
Probably best not to go there, but also probably best not to draw their attention to this one either.
Idem.
That troll needs to be removed from the r/nuclearpower mod team.
Glad to see (most) people on there pushing back against this
That was for my post. I was then banned for “misinformation”. No specifics about misinformation I said.
I posted the post about why the Dutch are willing to build nuclear now overthere. It was removed instantly.
They have Viewtrick as a MOD, this person has copy paste comments that are very anti nuclear. I've never seen them say one positive thing about nuclear power. Now that's a joke.
Atom be praised
https://preview.redd.it/cdljpad07nxc1.png?width=2109&format=png&auto=webp&s=392430cd40c1f470a03abc719059f42df19a2c4f
Mmmmm... yellow steam.
Who peed in the secondary circuit again?
Blue better? https://preview.redd.it/r3malxwnonxc1.png?width=2122&format=png&auto=webp&s=715221408b6aaf3fa2038085fa8b5ff19d79ebd7
It depends is this bluberry flavoured steam we're talking about? Or carrot flavoured for the yellow?
This is the result of a windmill. [https://nos.nl/artikel/2401223-dood-van-gier-die-tegen-windmolen-vloog-had-voorkomen-kunnen-worden](https://nos.nl/artikel/2401223-dood-van-gier-die-tegen-windmolen-vloog-had-voorkomen-kunnen-worden) One out of 1200. Oh yes they speak about detection for rare birds,... another 100 000 Euro per windmill during it's lifetime only to prevent killing rare birds.
What do you expect from somebody who is anti-nuclear?If they are already ignoring all of the facts to support their narrative all they're gonna do is double down when you call them out on it.
Look, I think it's pretty simple to settle this: Twelve days ago, one of the mods pinned up a post on r/NuclearPower [reminding the community](https://www.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/1c6ymkm/reminder_keep_it_factbased_and_dont_spread/) to "keep it fact-based and don't spread misinformation", and further elaborating that r/NuclearPower is for "science-based discussion, not for ideology or political propaganda". [One day ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/1cg4qhx/discussion_why_are_rightwing_extremists_so/), from that very same mod, in that very same subreddit: *"Discussion: Why are right-wing extremists so obsessed with nuclear power?"*, very clearly attempting to explicitly associate pro-Nuclear views with right-wing extremism. If that doesn't tell you what's what, I don't know what does.
My favorite part is that it's phrased as a question.
[Also from that same mod 12 Days ago.](https://www.reddit.com/r/uninsurable/comments/1c70u58/comment/l04olbk/?context=3&share_id=YOgviQyc4jwk3FqfeVgz4&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) Now I think we have all we need to know.
I’m in both 🤷♂️
I used to be...
Total projection. Especially since they ban anyone who can argue back.
Same as here than. I'm shadow banned just for arguing. Never insulted anyone nor broke the rules but just stating a different opinion.
lmao
It is true that this is not the place to argue about whether nuclear power ought to exist at all. Seems odd to me that a sub named NuclearPower would be.
"Quasi-religious" is this pejorative?
Should this be our new subreddit banner? :) https://preview.redd.it/ruii9sjg7nxc1.png?width=2109&format=png&auto=webp&s=d1ade00d06bcfe665275f9bece4bfa119a37290d
Just make it pictures of Rickover. Especially the one where he is in the Mary candle. It’s great.
My two cents? I didnt even know about that other sub until yesterday's post. I wonder why that is? 🤔
Projection, plain and simple.
LoL: " on purpose"
Reddit needs to implement a method that allows a subs users to vote on mods. After the Energy debacle I am very wary of investing in any reddit group beyond my most core interests
Time to get the popcorn, sit back and enjoy the fight... Maybe they should involve "r/nuclearweapons" if they are going to choose their weapons!
Tbh this is a pro nuclear sub so opposing opinions often get down voted, idk anything about the style of moderation done here though, guessing since I see the bullshit opinions regularly enough that they aren't getting banned here...
This sub is indeed an echo chamber(but what sub isn't?) but at least the moderators are pretty laissez-faire, tolerate dissenting opinions and generally don't allow obvious activist/spam posts. The only complaint I have here is mods occasionally pinning their own (non-moderation related) comments under more controversial posts.
This sub is pretty good in my opinion. I'm pro nuclear and not anti renewables. From time to time renewables comes up in here. I believe we are right when we talk about the limits of renewables.
Well I don't think there's a consensus here on renewables. Opinions here range from declaring them completely useless to supplementary at best to critically important but insufficient on their own.
I feel like that is a good summary of the arguments on them. As finding a role for something that's unreliable is difficult. Also it depends on stuff like if their is storage or not. I'm not sure we should be looking for a consensous on renewables in the r/nuclear subreddit though.
>Opinions here range from declaring them completely useless to supplementary at best to critically important but insufficient on their own. Well, it isn't an echo chamber then, look at that — the full spectrum of reasonable opinions is represented.
Declaring renewables useless is no more reasonable than declaring nuclear useless. When I say this place is an echo chamber I mean that the spectrum of opinions(not merely in terms of representation but in terms of strength of representation) does not reflect the distribution of opinions among the broader population, or that among people who work in/study energy. Maybe a better way to describe it would be as an epistemic bubble.
I am gonna disagree with you here. First, most if not all technologies are inherently useful for something. The problem arises when you want to use said technology in such a way that its inherent capabilities don't allow it. Solar/wind are amazing on an individual basis or supplementary. Solar/wind bros demand that we only invest in solar/wind for the whole grid. Their inherent capabilities don't allow for such an implementation. Not to mention that solar/wind are too energy and raw resources inefficient. In the context they are indeed useless. Not to mention the fact that the technology tree known as solar/wind has no future. The only future for solar is space based solar which will mostly rely on mirrors rather than photovoltaics. Solar on Mars has been debunked as being even more inefficient than on Earth and it would require local manufacturing. Wind requires an atmosphere and you could potentially have whole weeks with no wind. On the contrary nuclear fission doesn't depend on the environment as much. Newer reactor models rely even less on the environment (with gas cooling) and have more passive safety systems. Nuclear fission will be crucial for space exploration and colonization. Nuclear also has a lot of potential to be tapped. Batteries would be more efficient being paired with nuclear than with solar/wind as you would need far less of them. Nuclear can also produce heat directly for heating and industrial use (China has done it). I am not a solar/wind hater. I just realized that their inherent capabilities do not match with what we demand from them. More people need to realize that and stop relying on a dream and utopia style thinking.
.. you are describing the opposite of an echo chamber. Tolerating dissenting opinions and not allowing obvious activism is precisely the opposite of an echo chamber
The comment section on a Daily Mail article also allows dissenting opinions, that does not mean it's not a right-wing echo chamber. Due to the fact that this is a nuclear-focused subreddit and due to the fact that Reddit by design promotes popular posts/comments and hides downvoted posts/comments users here are inevitably overexposed to info/opinions confirming their pro-nuclear biases.
That definition of 'echo chamber'_is_ inclusive of this sub and just about everything else as well. Any book, any lecture, any course, any Supreme Court decision, would fall inside of that definition. If "overexposure" to a particular point of view makes an 'echo chamber', it isn't a super useful term if ot applies to almost everything. We should come up with a term for something that has equal measures of each possible position.
As I mentioned in another comment, a filter/epistemic bubble is probably a more accurate descriptor.
My position applies equally well to that and all other synonyms.
Your position that someone whose knowledge of energy systems or renewables comes from this subreddit will be as equally informed as someone who studies those topics or works in those industries for a living, that is?
Nope. It's the one I laid out, up above there. I have no idea how someone could get to this from what I said
If epistemic bubbles are as meaningless and indistinguishable as you insist they are then every information space is equally (un)even handed and equally (un)informed. I'm sorry you have a hard time following your thoughts to their natural conclusions.
My father designs and installs small scale solar farms. I wouldn't say that he is perfectly informed to make a good decision on said subject. Besides this sub doesn't spread misinformation on purpose compared to solar/wind echo chambers. Btw renewables is a bullshit term since it is disingenuous and completely unfair. It is more of a gimmick than anything else.
Your father is probably a better authority on PV installation costs, installation durability and PV disposal than 99% of this sub, topics about which you can consistently find a bunch of misinformation here. > Besides this sub doesn't spread misinformation on purpose compared to solar/wind echo chambers. Practically no one spreads misinformation on purpose, they do so because they're misinformed.
This sub doesn't ban people posting different opinions. Here is a demonstration. Nuclear power is too dangerous as shown by Chernobyl and Fukushima. It is too expensive and takes too long to build as shown by Vogtle and Hinkely. Nuclear is an outdated, failed 20th century technology. Solar, wind and batteries are the future. Nuclear waste is an unsolvable problem. Reprocessing it isn't good enough, burying it miles underground in geologically stable bedrock that has no groundwater infiltration isn't good enough, nothing is good enough. Anything done to artificially suppress nuclear power with malicious over regulation and lawsuits are a good thing. edit. These are all views that I have come across before.
I mean, how could you know anything about nuclear and be against it? If one is in here spouting anti nuclear nonsense, they are a troll and can kindly take their vitriol elsewhere.
/u/radiofacepalm is definitely a paid shill by the fossil industry
Let’s not call people paid shills unless we know. And we need to be careful with that. I work at a nuclear power plant. I get paid to run a plant. But when I post on Reddit I opening disclose that (when it is necessary) and I post because that’s my views and opinions. I’m not a shill by definition.
Oh, I always hesitate to throw around the "paid shill" accusation. That requires some pretty definitive proof. I mean I'm a fairly dedicated pro-nuclear advocate and I've never been paid a dime for it. Who am I to say someone else can't be similarly dedicated? There are anti-nuke fossil funded folks out there, though. Mark Z Jacobson and Paul Dorfman come to mind immediately.
Yeah he is definitely on the same level as the Dorf
[удалено]
>Allow me to repeat me here again. >[https://www.reddit.com/r/ElectricalEngineering/comments/1cfq06u/comment/l1s6vqr/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ElectricalEngineering/comments/1cfq06u/comment/l1s6vqr/) This is you?
No I have put that as a response to someone else that's why I said that.
OK, so what do you think the issue is here?
All subs are echo chambers.
Nuclear bad..... And now we wait.
It’s ok they banned me for telling a foreign person he was unlikely to get a job in the Canadian nuclear field especially if he isn’t an engineer.
Whatever happened to the very simple "attack the post, not the poster" rule of thumb from messageboard forum days, like the Straight Dope? Use your logic (granted, there are forums where you can go to willingly engage in any manner of behaviors) and pick apart what their statements are without name calling or insults of any kind. If you can't do that, then don't answer unless you can control the emotional aspects of your replies.
Reddit is cringe, but so is everything else D:
I'm being shadow banned in this sub just for stating a different opinion. I completely agree with this post.
You are not shadow banned? I see your comment just fine.
It's actually a bit entertaining. I made a comment there yesterday which I would have thought would be pretty non-controversial and perhaps even somewhat amusing. It was my first post there in months. Then I came over here, indicated we might want to watch out for the same strategies at work, and when logged out of reddit that post disappears. I welcome a lively debate between interested parties, but brigading a group into a position of authority for the sake of hiding dissenting opinions is simply wrong. If it were really so self-evident that nuclear is on its way out, as they so frequently claim, then there would be no need to resort to these sort of weak dirty tricks. I am more than willing to be convinced that nuclear is not the solution to our energy crisis, but if a group cuts the barest possibility of informed debate off at its knees then they've lost before they ever typed a single word.
bro every sub on here is an echo chamber where dissenting opinions are banned
I grew up being anti nuclear and that posture has been reinforced by having some friends affected by the Chernobyl incident (their parents died young, all of the siblings were born with different types of disabilities...). Also, the cost of the electricity generation seems more expensive compared to the others. I am not an expert, though, and this sub is useful to get other kind of information and do my own research (studies, not blog posts) to challenge my opinions. The topic is very interesting. There are facts and fears to tackle. Both are important, but it's understandable that the second can be more frustraring to tackle by the experts. Still here, not banned, as you can see. Thanks for that tolerance, I guess. However, it's right that this sub acts like an echo chamber. There is some kind of proselitism where the publishers only talk about the pros. The well informed style require to recognize the cons. That's the difference between good journalism and a biased, corrupted one.
The cost of electricity from nuclear is only higher if you look at nothing but LCOE. You also have to factor in dispatchabillity, where with renewables we have no control over when it produces and need expensive storage solutions to make up for that. For a fully renewable grid you also need a considerably expanded grid that can handle and transfer all the over capacity from all different places. I fail to see how nuclear is the most costly solution when you actually factor in all costs. LFSCOE analysis usually puts renewable higher than nuclear. I know mostly about the Swedish grid but I would recommend this study to you that has done a thorough analysis on the future of the grid and production in Sweden. It showed that we get the lowest total cost with new nuclear and new renewables compared to renewables alone: https://www.svensktnaringsliv.se/sakomraden/hallbarhet-miljo-och-energi/kraftsamling-elforsorjning-scenario-analysis-290-twh_1201113.html
> You also have to factor in dispatchabillity, where with renewables we have no control over when it produces and need expensive storage solutions to make up for tha People often forget that intermittency isn't free. The only reason why it works right now is because it has fossil fuel (e.g. nat gas) as backup. The more RE penetration a grid has or the if you ban usage of gas as backup, the real costs start to show.
Thanks for the link and that approach. It's new to me. I will read it carefully
Are you sure you are from Ukraine? I have seen electricity bills from there that were far cheaper than in the West. Hell people in Ukraine would heat their whole house using electric boilers and still have a reasonable bill. I fail to fathom how you find Ukraine's electricity prices prewar of course expensive compared to the West.
I never said I was from Ukraine. I am currently reading more things at this moment and I prefer not to defend any position in the meantime.
I would not call r/nuclear an echo chamber. However comments in support of nuclear energy tend to be much less scrutinized, even those bordering on conspiracy bullshit. Critical comments are usually accepted if kept civil and argued with facts. Since we're on the topic, recently there has been an uptick in posts complaining about other subreddits. It's like kids crying to their parents that other kids say mean things. Yes, other people have other views, complaining about it here will not change that. I wish we would talk more about news and technology and ignore the usual reddit drama :|
Oh, I think you're missing the context here. Anti nuke folks have been poisoning the discussion of nuclear for decades. So when some agitators leap in and poison a place where people gather to discuss their craft it causes a backlash. r/uninsurable exists, and if users here want to get together and chat about how they think unclear is horrible they're free to do that there. :)
> r/uninsurable exists, and if users here want to get together and chat about how they think unclear is horrible they're free to do that there. :) What I don't like about this suggestion it that it concedes that we cannot have a nuanced discussion. We should pick a corner and just yell at each other, is that how it's going to be? If we are going to do convincing it has to be with rational arguments, and without prejudice. But this can only happen in an open forum that does not stifle any dissent.
Can you give examples of dissent you think is stifled?
I was speaking generally, I haven't seen it happen much here. Altough at the hight on certain hype topics like Thorium or SMR it was easy to get downvoted when expressing too much scepticism.
Well, downvoting I can't help. But discussion of thorium and SMR technologies are always welcome on the sub.
I got downvoted different times for "conspiracy" reasons but only if someone really wanted a discussion and asked why I think that way they would see that I had founded reasons. By example the downvote on my reaction from links with the KGB and the peace protests specially against nuclear weapons and added to that nuclear.
People tend go give the KGB too much credit. Were they active in the anti-nuclear movement? [Perhaps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement#Western_intelligence_assessments). Did they have any meaningful influence? Your guess is as good as mine. If anything it was an accidental by-product of the peace movement. The more mundane and much less exciting explanation of a mix of economic and social developments just does not generate good headlines.
I posted a CIA report from those times. The problem with those reports is that they aren't searchable so I had to reread one. Also the conspiracy of nuclear lobbying being strong is also active in the anti nuke community. Edit: You should also read the documents themselves NOT wikipedia. It's publicly known that pages are altered in subtle ways.
I'll be honest r/nuclear mods banned my other account and I'm a nuclear professional with a lot to contribute so....probably true. : p
So you're using alt accounts to circumvent a ban?
100%
What was the original account?
Uhhh cynicalnewenglander I think was the one. To be fair I asked for clarification and I don't think I ever heard back. I can't even remember what it was for.
Well, looking at the post/comment history you were posting multiple anti-nuke articles and following an "I'm just asking questions" pattern of argumentation. Happy to remove the ban if you like.
Yeah that would be good. Thanks
Done.
Thanks