6 ms·

Their point is that these risks are overblown. Nobody died from Fukushima. So if the major accident you're concerned about was, in fact, completely due to human

by wrsh07 11y ago

Their point is that these risks are overblown. Nobody died from Fukushima. So if the major accident you're concerned about was, in fact, completely due to human error [and even still the number of deaths was relatively small], why are you still so skeptical? It would be very difficult to change this picture [http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/#production http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/#production] to using only clean energies without ramping up our nuclear. Finally, when literal millions die per year because of air pollution, you are choosing something significantly more dangerous [and worse for the environment] because of many fewer memorable nuclear power-related deaths.

chefkoch 11y ago
I'm not even sure that the number of people who died or could die is really the most severe point but i rather believe it is the cost of a nuclear accident. We as a society decide every day to let people die because it is too expensive. Think of healthcare, safety norms or human aid. And having massive areas in high developed countries beeing uninhabitable is unbelieveble costly. Think what 100 sqm in california would amount to.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  Even more troubling.. There's a similar generation nuclear reactor about 40 miles from NYC. Just imagine the cost if Manhattan was in an exclusion zone.
  - wrsh07 11y ago
    The Chernobyl exclusion zone is 30km radius. That's the exclusion zone for the worst nuclear power plant disaster in history. Indian Point is >60km away. This is needless fear-mongering.
    - mikeyouse 11y ago
      Look at the actual map for the exclusion zone: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Chernoby... There are areas over 100km away that are still in the closed zone. They found hotspots of >100 curies/sq km up to 300km from the reactors. It's not like there's a safe little 30km concentric circle. If NYC were upwind from Indian Point, I woudln't be "fear-mongering" but an event like Chernobyl would very likely impact NYC.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
skybrian 11y ago
Nobody died but a large region had to be evacuated. How much would it cost to insure against that? Is nuclear power still cost-effective if we include the cost of insuring against having to evacuate?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Part of the reason it was evacuated was that overblown perception of risks. The evacuation itself did more harm to people that staying in place ever would.
  - skybrian 11y ago
    Perhaps, but that means the cost of nuclear power is not purely technical. To keep the cost reasonable, you need to convince government authorities and the general public that they don't need to evacuate. It's a tough political challenge and can't be wished away.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      True, but a) the chance of an event warranting evacuation (or even perceived as such) over lifetime of a nuclear reactor is negligible, and b) somehow this problem was solved for chemical plants, factories, coal plants, etc. Yes, reversing the radiophobia will take a lot of work, political and otherwise, but realizing that it's the only real thing that blocks nations from building nuclear plants is a good start.
      - skybrian 11y ago
        An insurance company that considered the risk of evacuation to be negligible would be negligent. It's important to estimate the likelihood of rare risks when they're very expensive and you have to pay for them. Get Berkshire Hathaway to insure against this risk and I'll believe it's a reasonable one to take.
  - xigency 11y ago
    This is not even remotely true. The harm caused to people who evacuated was finding a new supermarket in the (nearby) town they moved to versus significantly higher risks of cancer if they had stayed. Think of a 10x increase in rates of Thyroid cancer. This might cause one or two deaths over a decade depending on the sparseness of population, but we are talking about people's lives. In terms of insurance, the region was known for some rare produce, saké, and tourism, but I think well-being should be the primary concern.

by wrsh07 11y ago

chefkoch 11y ago

I'm not even sure that the number of people who died or could die is really the most severe point but i rather believe it is the cost of a nuclear accident. We as a society decide every day to let people die because it is too expensive. Think of healthcare, safety norms or human aid. And having massive areas in high developed countries beeing uninhabitable is unbelieveble costly. Think what 100 sqm in california would amount to.

mikeyouse 11y ago
Even more troubling.. There's a similar generation nuclear reactor about 40 miles from NYC. Just imagine the cost if Manhattan was in an exclusion zone.
- wrsh07 11y ago
  The Chernobyl exclusion zone is 30km radius. That's the exclusion zone for the worst nuclear power plant disaster in history. Indian Point is >60km away. This is needless fear-mongering.
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    Look at the actual map for the exclusion zone: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Chernoby... There are areas over 100km away that are still in the closed zone. They found hotspots of >100 curies/sq km up to 300km from the reactors. It's not like there's a safe little 30km concentric circle. If NYC were upwind from Indian Point, I woudln't be "fear-mongering" but an event like Chernobyl would very likely impact NYC.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

skybrian 11y ago

Nobody died but a large region had to be evacuated. How much would it cost to insure against that? Is nuclear power still cost-effective if we include the cost of insuring against having to evacuate?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Part of the reason it was evacuated was that overblown perception of risks. The evacuation itself did more harm to people that staying in place ever would.
- skybrian 11y ago
  Perhaps, but that means the cost of nuclear power is not purely technical. To keep the cost reasonable, you need to convince government authorities and the general public that they don't need to evacuate. It's a tough political challenge and can't be wished away.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    True, but a) the chance of an event warranting evacuation (or even perceived as such) over lifetime of a nuclear reactor is negligible, and b) somehow this problem was solved for chemical plants, factories, coal plants, etc. Yes, reversing the radiophobia will take a lot of work, political and otherwise, but realizing that it's the only real thing that blocks nations from building nuclear plants is a good start.
    - skybrian 11y ago
      An insurance company that considered the risk of evacuation to be negligible would be negligent. It's important to estimate the likelihood of rare risks when they're very expensive and you have to pay for them. Get Berkshire Hathaway to insure against this risk and I'll believe it's a reasonable one to take.
- xigency 11y ago
  This is not even remotely true. The harm caused to people who evacuated was finding a new supermarket in the (nearby) town they moved to versus significantly higher risks of cancer if they had stayed. Think of a 10x increase in rates of Thyroid cancer. This might cause one or two deaths over a decade depending on the sparseness of population, but we are talking about people's lives. In terms of insurance, the region was known for some rare produce, saké, and tourism, but I think well-being should be the primary concern.