4 ms·
No, we can't have it both ways, which is why we're explicitly asking to not have it both ways. Let's apply the same level of rational risk tolerance to nuclear
by mseebach 10y ago
No, we can't have it both ways, which is why we're explicitly asking to not have it both ways.
Let's apply the same level of rational risk tolerance to nuclear power as we do to all other power sources. Nuclear isn't 100.00% safe, but it's already a lot safer than any other source. People die from falling off roofs when installing solar and nobody bats an eye because shit happens and life goes on. Let's accept that nuclear is extremely (if not absolutely) safe, and make sure we learn from mistakes, accidents and near-misses when they do happen -- like we did (and do) with aviation.
- jschwartzi 10y agoI think the difference in attitude comes from how /specific/ a risk factor is. Falling off a roof is very specific to the person doing the installation, and it's easily foreseeable to the installer. This makes it easier to ignore. In contrast, fallout from a reactor failure is very general. You basically draw some distorted circles on a map, and everyone in those circles is affected. It's way more terrifying because you have basically no control over the risk once a reactor is built. Worse, if you lived in the area before the reactor existed you've just gained a new risk factor. If you're a homeowner you can pack up and move, but that's a major undertaking to avoid a risk that someone else created for you. In contrast, the solar installer has direct control over their exposure to the risk. They were aware of it before entering the situation, and they can eliminate the hazard at any time by quitting.