3 ms·

Great! I'll chip in on both. Don't think he meant it as a dismissal, just as a preemptive nudge to discourage actual groupthink. For countries that already ha

by mgalka 11y ago

Great! I'll chip in on both. Don't think he meant it as a dismissal, just as a preemptive nudge to discourage actual groupthink. For countries that already have nuclear weapons, I don't even see a valid argument against nuclear power. Agree, the only think holding us back is politicians who are afraid to use the word "nuclear."

tptacek 11y ago
That can't be right. There are obvious arguments against nuclear power. I don't think they're dispositive, but it doesn't seem right to claim they're invalid. For instance: * Serious, INES 7 nuclear incidents can render whole regions uninhabitable. * Health impact from nuclear incidents can be insidious, revealing themselves only in long-term statistics, which can make risks hard to gauge. * Waste containment remains an unsolved problem. There are probably many other valid arguments. I think people underestimate the impact of coal, and de-industrialization is totally unrealistic and would almost certainly do far more damage to more people than nuclear would. But to suggest that nuclear isn't fraught, or that the only concern was proliferation... that doesn't seem intellectually honest.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > * Health impact from nuclear incidents can be insidious, revealing themselves only in long-term statistics, which can make risks hard to gauge. Incidents from non-nuclear plants cause way more deaths (in short term and long term). Coal kills people too, by polluting the air with fine particles. > * Waste containment remains an unsolved problem. Where? There's tons of space deep in the ground, it's not like we are running out of place of where to put it. Plus, there are ways to recycle used nuclear fuel to make it less radioactive.
  - Tomte 11y ago
    Actually, you don't just dump it somewhere underground. Germany has been searching for a suitable place for many decades now, though I'll admit that politics is getting in the way. And you still need to contain the waste. Think Asse. Everyone assured us it was perfectly safe, then we found out the barrels were rusted through, falling over one another and leaking. And then you need to make sure nobody just digs it up. Tomorrow. In a hundred years. In ten thousand years. Have fun designing the universally understood signage.
- mgalka 11y ago
  Didn't mean to imply nuclear doesn't have its own risks. I just think that they are extremely small relative to those of coal / natural gas. Chernobyl is responsible for more-or-less 4,000 total deaths. Air pollution is responsible for about 200,000 deaths in the U.S. annually, and about 7,000,000 annual deaths worldwide (more than smoking). I think the only open issue with waste containment is that the waste will remain radioactive for 100s of thousands of years, possibly longer than time it would take the container to break down (and I guess someone might try and dig it up?). Not a real practical threat.

by mgalka 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

That can't be right. There are obvious arguments against nuclear power. I don't think they're dispositive, but it doesn't seem right to claim they're invalid. For instance: * Serious, INES 7 nuclear incidents can render whole regions uninhabitable. * Health impact from nuclear incidents can be insidious, revealing themselves only in long-term statistics, which can make risks hard to gauge. * Waste containment remains an unsolved problem. There are probably many other valid arguments. I think people underestimate the impact of coal, and de-industrialization is totally unrealistic and would almost certainly do far more damage to more people than nuclear would. But to suggest that nuclear isn't fraught, or that the only concern was proliferation... that doesn't seem intellectually honest.

ekianjo 11y ago
> * Health impact from nuclear incidents can be insidious, revealing themselves only in long-term statistics, which can make risks hard to gauge. Incidents from non-nuclear plants cause way more deaths (in short term and long term). Coal kills people too, by polluting the air with fine particles. > * Waste containment remains an unsolved problem. Where? There's tons of space deep in the ground, it's not like we are running out of place of where to put it. Plus, there are ways to recycle used nuclear fuel to make it less radioactive.
- Tomte 11y ago
  Actually, you don't just dump it somewhere underground. Germany has been searching for a suitable place for many decades now, though I'll admit that politics is getting in the way. And you still need to contain the waste. Think Asse. Everyone assured us it was perfectly safe, then we found out the barrels were rusted through, falling over one another and leaking. And then you need to make sure nobody just digs it up. Tomorrow. In a hundred years. In ten thousand years. Have fun designing the universally understood signage.
mgalka 11y ago
Didn't mean to imply nuclear doesn't have its own risks. I just think that they are extremely small relative to those of coal / natural gas. Chernobyl is responsible for more-or-less 4,000 total deaths. Air pollution is responsible for about 200,000 deaths in the U.S. annually, and about 7,000,000 annual deaths worldwide (more than smoking). I think the only open issue with waste containment is that the waste will remain radioactive for 100s of thousands of years, possibly longer than time it would take the container to break down (and I guess someone might try and dig it up?). Not a real practical threat.