+14 votes
in Suggestion by (130 points)
While uranium ore is naturally radioactive it is primarily an alpha emitter. This means it can be safely held in the hand as the dead layer of your skin is sufficient to stop alphas. They are only dangerous if ingested.

Also a properly shielded reactor produces less radiation then a banana.

Please do a little bit of research on radioactivity and reactors before this goes live. This breaks my suspension of disbelief as I have spent a good portion of my life working with reactors.
by (240 points)
Like other players  have pointed out, this is an alien world.While here on earth most of our uranium deposits are made of U-238, Its possible this world has much higher concentrations of U-235.
by (2.5k points)
LOL  Tough crowd.  I think the radiation from the in-game uranium is a bit over the top too, especially for someone wearing an environmental/space suit.  One would think that something simple like radiation exposure would at least partially be mitgated in a suit for someone who goes around exploring new planets.  Same goes for the gas exposure, or driving in an enclosed vehicle - but those are two other axes . . .
by (200 points)
This is possibly for you to need radiation suit to use uranium.
Boo uranium is so unrealistic but alien plants perfectly safe for human consumption is very realistic, right?
Its literally a game.
by (100 points)
Uranium 235 decay emit Alpha Rays (α) LIKE the 238, and only 0.4 Mev more.
Means that yes, the "others players" are wrong.

PS : i'll not trust a space exploration company which doesn't know how to protect you from radiation and get exposed all the time from space radiation.

6 Answers

+3 votes
edited by
Uranium is so unrealistically radioactive for you to not get it too early.
by (1.6k points)
A) This hardly qualifies for an answer. More of a comment...
B) The suit designed to protect against radiation burns the filters at absurd speeds as well...
+2 votes
by (15.4k points)
Really ?!

And floating foundations with out any support don't brake your suspension of disbelief?

This is just game, and uranium is reperesented so that any one knows what is it for.
by (2.5k points)
So, for pyro, you know of course that the problems with radiation from the two incidents you are citing, has little or nothing to do with uranium?  It the byproducts from the reactions.  But you knew that, right?
by (1.3k points)
edited by
@Stickerjim Uranium has little/nothing to do with the fact of the dangers in nuclear technologies other than it being incidental to nuclear technologies, with the fact of said danger being the point i was trying to make.

Radiation is portrayed the way it is because the dangers of radiation and of nuclear technologies deserve respect and player damage in radius is a very simple way of achieving that in a game.

Calling this portrayal a development of a "fear of radiation" or of any "myths" as Mnemorath has described it is extremely ignorant, arrogant and misguided to say the least.

Also @ Mnemorath, As a counter point i will ask a simple question.
What has the fatality statistics of flying, driving, solar or wind have to do with the fact of the dangers of radiation and nuclear technologies?

So if you or anyone can't handle the reasons why, at least in my opinion in this case, this suggestion is so poor, please take it to someone else as this bigotry is not my problem and with the way i have been responded to, i wouldn't be surprised if no one else bothers to take the time to explain their reasoning either.

The -18 on the original post speaks for itself.
But you knew that, right?
by (130 points)
edited by
I need to make sure you are saying what I think you are saying pyrofire232.

I had to look and make sure I mentioned my 20 YEAR CAREER operating and maintaining reactor plants. I did. Yet you call me, and I quote, "extremely ignorant, arrogant and misguided." Did I get that right? So my experience and training over TWO DECADES are for naught and I know nothing about reactor safety and radiation?

What is your training in sunshine? Internet shitposting from your mom's basement?

Do not presume you know anything about the subject simply because you can name the ONLY TWO major reactor incidents in the ENTIRE nearly 70 year history of nuclear power.

The fatality statistics of everything I mention PROVE MY POINT! More people die in a single plane crash or DAILY in car crashes then have been killed by radiation from reactors EVER!  There have been thousands of years of relative reactor operations over the last 70 years. The fact you can count the number of accidents on one hand says VOLUMES about the safety record. The fact you can name them says volumes of the irrational fear of them. As I said more people die in a single year from plane crashes then the entirety of reactor operations but fear of flying is irrational? You will find Fukushima levels of radiation in your local grocery store right now. But saying that the fear of radiation is "extremely ignorant, arrogant and misguided to say the least"?

Again, I have over 2 decades of experience in the subject, but according to your internet degree I know nothing.

The -18 is because of idiots like you who have no idea about reactors or radiation any more then you do.

Sit down, shut up and perhaps do some actual research into the subject BEFORE YOU ATTEMPT TO EDUCATE A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT WITH TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE!
by (1.3k points)
edited by
Wow i've touched a nerve there.
Where to start with you.

The subject of this thread is the fact that, as you are saying, radiation/nuclear technologies are not *as dangerous* in reality as it is portrayed in video games and specifically in satisfactory.

Nothing says satisfactory has to be exactly realistic.
As an example of this departure from realism - Please explain the space elevator having the actual elevator magically appear out of the sky, how items magically fly from the player to constructed buildings, or how the chainsaw magically cuts down a bunch of trees and shrubs at once with a single swing, or how plants magically don't re-grow their fruits, or how there is magically a local wildlife population without any of them ever breeding.
Realism doesn't matter all that much beyond the initial concept, what matters is how the gameplay mechanics work, how they feel and how those mechanics interact with the player's experience and immersion in the satisfying world of Satisfactory full of things that we may not understand and may be completely different to how we might know them from our reality, or to put it another way, Satisfactory is a game like many others that takes place in a fantasy world, and in that fantasy world, uranium magically deals huge radiation damage.

You may be experienced in nuclear safety, but you are not experienced in game development nor balancing like i am and the developers of satisfactory are, and you have put forward very little to actually remedy (or even identify) any real issues in gameplay mechanics nor anything to improve the radiation mechanics in satisfactory in any way other than, from the best i can understand of your writings, is to remove them entirely .. ?
that's pretty stupid from a developers perspective.
And if you're talking about toning down the damage, same thing, that's a game balance issue not a realism issue.

And personally, I'm interested to see what the devs plan to do with having miners and conveyor belts full of items that kill you if you go near it.

Secondly, you've only mentioned the statistics of nuclear reactors, and not of radiation as a whole and in general.
What about David Hahn which i previously mentioned who built a nuclear reactor in his back yard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
What about the radium girls? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
What about the fact that your day job even exists at all or that there is any need for any person to have any safety "expertise" about radiation of any kind?
The danger is real and there are more radiation related incidents than you or I can count, and you SHOULD know that by your quote unquote "expertise" that you claim to have.

The Texas Sharpshooter.
You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument, or found a pattern to fit a presumption.

So thank you for identifying this minor departure from reality that satisfactory has taken.
Myself and 17 others clearly disagree with your notion that satisfactory needs any changes in consideration of this.

It's not my problem or anyone else's that you can't understand or accept that there's a difference between a video game and reality nor can you form a reasonable, consistent and logical argument.

Should you have anything further to say in response to my argument, please try to avoid further attacks against any false or prejudiced perceived character or personal traits of myself or any other visitors to this forum that you arrogantly believe I or they may have or i will then leave it to the board administration to discipline you.
by (200 points)
It's pretty cheeky to see you talking about cherry picking when you do the exact same thing with your two examples (David Hahn and Radium Girls). These are exceptional cases that are not very representative of the use of nuclear power in general, in the world.

it is a fact that nuclear is one of the most misunderstood energies, where information about is almost always distorted because of fear. Because of lack of education.

We could also talk about energy production by coal, oil or gaz in the real world and make some quick assessments.

- The big health problem from vehicle exhaust and air pollution which cause millions of premature deaths by year.
- The use of coal which cause about 20 000 millions premature deaths in Europe.
- The Banqiao Dam in China, who failed in 1975 and caused 230 000 deaths (! More than any other pessimistic estimation of Tchernobyl ! From far away !)

All of this is use to make energy, they shouldn't depart from the rule, nuclear is not an exception. If you want to argue against nuclear, you have to take into consideration all the problem caused by the others way to make energy.

When i say that i'm not even talking about greenhouse gases and the problem of global warming. One of the biggest advantage of nuclear. You can hate nuclear as much as you want, it's really not negligible in these times where there is emergency.

Personnaly I follow  Mnemorath on this particular point.

I also think we really don't need misinformation in Satisfactory. Mostly because of all I said and what was already said, people just don't do their own research, it contributes to the idea that nuclear power is bad. And I don't see how the "it's just a game" is a good argument, after all it would be a very good thing if the game could taught things about real life (like they did for nuclear waste, it's good that we can't get rid of it like that). Really, it's beneficial for everyone, you can have fun and learn things.

I think that dev can find other way to make this energy difficult to access, to maintain the "reward" for using it.

PS: english is not my native language, I hope it's understandable.
+1 vote
by (10.9k points)
Do you own research as to why games implement radiation damage like this...

Half-Life, Fallout, Elex, etc all implement a similar radiation damage.
by (1.3k points)
OP doesn't need to research game development or game history because he already has that experience from working with nuclear stuff and radiation in real life.

by (10.9k points)
@ pyrofire232

You don't get it, do you?
+1 vote
by (8.4k points)

To put it the way I see things... I'm not a fan of nuclear energy at all, but the current in game implementation is just pure fear mongering.

by (130 points)
While I am a fan of nuclear power (comes from experience and training) I agree that it is pure fear mongering. As it stands I find it extremely offensive and will not be using it.
+1 vote
by (1.1k points)
Because it's a game and that's how its balanced. It shapes the flow of the game and requires the player to build their technology. It isn't trying to be real. It's trying to be fun.
by (130 points)
Your cognitive dissonance is showing. You are missing my point. People do exactly what you are saying. They DO get information from games and TV. They DO NOT do their own research. This is why I am so upset about it.

An accurate representation of nuclear power is 180 degrees out from the representation in popular media. As it stands, because of representing it like this game does, we do not use it to the level we should be. This game and anything that shows reactors in the same light is pure fear mongering. Anyone who claims it is not is an idiot of the highest order and should go out and educate themselves.

Take it from someone with over two decades of experience in the field.
by (2.6k points)
It's not a game's job to educate people.
A game's job is to entertain them.
by (130 points)
While true, it does not excuse fear mongering.
by (200 points)
And I don't see how it would be a bad thing for the game to teach you things while remaining fun. If a game can change your perception, your way of seeing things in real life, why not? After all it uses all existing energy on our planet and not alien strange thing, so somehow the game wants to be close of our reality.

You could also add pollution from coal or oil for example (like Factorio did), it's a counterpart. You never have energy without counterpart. That's a very good lesson to learn. Even if, I agree that it has to stay fun, I think it's about balancing.
by (2.6k points)
it's mostly because the game doesn't have to teach you anytthing. some games are simply about entertainment instead of having a teaching element to them.
This game isn't made to teach you about nuclear/ uranium any more than Call of Duty is made to teach you about gun safety.

Sometimes, entertainment is all that matters.
0 votes
by (18k points)

I don't understand why there is so much discussion on a simple topic. The answer to the OP's original question: The uranium radiates so much radiation because that's how the developers coded it and that's how they want it to be in their game. Deal with it. You don't have to touch it and you don't have to use it if you don't want to. 

by (130 points)
I will not be.
Welcome to Satisfactory Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.
In order to keep this site accessible for everybody, please write your post in english :)
August 28th update: We've removed downvotes! One major reason is because we don't want to discourage folks from posting legitimate suggestions / reports / questions with fear of being mass downvoted (which has been happening a LOT). So we now allow you to upvote what you like, or ignore what you don't. Points have also been adjusted to account for this change.
Please use the search function before posting a new question and upvote existing ones to bring more attention to them, It will help us a lot. <3
Remember to mark resolved questions as answered by clicking on the check mark located under the upvotes of each answer.