6 ms·

There's a degree to which it is a zero sum system. If wind and solar is where we should be eventually, then resources put into nuclear now aren't going into wi

There's a degree to which it is a zero sum system. If wind and solar is where we should be eventually, then resources put into nuclear now aren't going into wind/solar research and infrastructure building. And nuclear's not cheap. Plus, while nuclear can be done safely, it often isn't, and when it fails, it fails catastrophically. So it's scary for a lot of people. People have to trust not just that nuclear _can_ be done safely, but that it _will_ be done safely. That second one, especially, is a big leap for lots of folks.

wbl 10y ago
There have only been three accidents at level 5 at commercial nuclear power plants, ever. Only one (Chernobyl) resulted in any casualties. The exclusion zones around Fukushima are as radioactive as Denver.
- tekmate 10y ago
  and 30 years later the wild hogs in germany are still radioactive thanks to all the caesium in the ground, trying to downplay the effects of these catastrophic events, no matter how rare they are, isn't very helpful
  - htns 10y ago
    They are still perfectly safe to eat. There isn't even an effect to downplay.
    - tekmate 10y ago
      just because it's a rationale for people to be vocally against nuclear doesn't mean it's rational
  - ComputerGuru 10y ago
    > and 30 years later the wild hogs in germany are still radioactive So is the 300 million year old chunk of coal being burned in a factory and that banana you ate yesterday... This is how FUD spreads. What does it even mean for something to "be radioactive?" How much "radioactive" is bad?
    - Pokepokalypse 10y ago
      You're conflating ideas. Yes, Potassium and even radioactive Caesium are flushed out of the body. (whether Caesium is, is controversial). Iodine accumulates in the body (but has a short half-life). Strontium, and several other elements build-up. They bio-accumulate. So yes, you can eat a radioactive wild hog, and be safe. If you eat them for dinner once a week, you will very likely, eventually, suffer ill health effects, possibly even cancer. This is not a problem for hog hunters in Germany. It is a problem for Rice farmers in Japan. Because those guys eat a lot of rice, all day, every day. Plus, the rice is often processed into other products, and combined into other foods as starch or protein supplements, so even people who don't eat rice are getting some exposure. After Fukushima, the strategy was not to dump all the radioactive rice. They dumped everything with high levels; and then the rice with medium levels, they mixed it in with uncontaminated rice, to make the overall level low enough to be below regulatory thresholds (which they raised after Fukushima). Now, it's going to be found in your rice-chex cereal in America. Your protein-bar in France. Your chewing gum in Africa. Is any of that going to kill you? It probably raises anyone's chance of eventually getting cancer by .001%. Yes, there's no way to prove it, no way to sue anybody, or collect damages. If you survive the cancer, you're still the person who has to pay for it. If you don't get cancer, you still pay for it, because your insurance premium covers the increased risk to your pool. You - the person affected - pay for this. The people who made profit; the shareholders, don't care.
ComputerGuru 10y ago
> Plus, while nuclear can be done safely, it often isn't Huh? Citation certainly needed since by ANY metric you are 100% incorrect. Count the number of nuclear subs, nuclear power plants, plutonium power sources, controlled fusion reactions in testing, fission reactions being carried out across the globe by nations at different stages of development, etc and tell me it is "often" not done safely. The fact that nuclear is so scary to get wrong is precisely why we (by and large) get it right.
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  That's the problem: by and large isn't good enough. No one wants a meltdown in their country. Its why the US military stopped carrying nuclear weapons in airplane bomb bays; they lost a bunch. With nukes, any is horrifying. A cite? Kyshtym, Chernobyl, Fukushima, . . . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_acc... P.S. I'm still a proponent of nuclear power. It beats coal all to hell. I don't think denying the risks helps; a rational discussion of the benefits and risks of each method better serves us all.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    The US military stopped carrying nukes in planes because of ICBMs.
    - CapitalistCartr 10y ago
      We had ICBM's before 1970. It was dropping too many that killed it. Like 4 on Spain. Solid-fueled missiles didn't help ease the fear over a first strike much; they're still vulnerable.
      - ceejayoz 10y ago
        The Minuteman entered service in 1962, and the long-lived Minuteman III entered service in 1968 - same exact year Operation Chrome Dome ended. It became pretty clear that ICBMs were a lot more effective than trying to get a B-52 through Soviet air defense.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
0xfeba 10y ago
> Plus, while nuclear can be done safely, it often isn't, and when it fails, it fails catastrophically. And thus is the problem with the court of public opinion on this. Nuclear is the safest per Kw/h, period. But yes, there are accidents and they are plastered over the news for weeks. Whereas coal mining disasters? Well it's just coal mining, not related to the coal power plant that coal was all headed too.

wbl 10y ago

There have only been three accidents at level 5 at commercial nuclear power plants, ever. Only one (Chernobyl) resulted in any casualties. The exclusion zones around Fukushima are as radioactive as Denver.

tekmate 10y ago
and 30 years later the wild hogs in germany are still radioactive thanks to all the caesium in the ground, trying to downplay the effects of these catastrophic events, no matter how rare they are, isn't very helpful
- htns 10y ago
  They are still perfectly safe to eat. There isn't even an effect to downplay.
  - tekmate 10y ago
    just because it's a rationale for people to be vocally against nuclear doesn't mean it's rational
- ComputerGuru 10y ago
  > and 30 years later the wild hogs in germany are still radioactive So is the 300 million year old chunk of coal being burned in a factory and that banana you ate yesterday... This is how FUD spreads. What does it even mean for something to "be radioactive?" How much "radioactive" is bad?
  - Pokepokalypse 10y ago
    You're conflating ideas. Yes, Potassium and even radioactive Caesium are flushed out of the body. (whether Caesium is, is controversial). Iodine accumulates in the body (but has a short half-life). Strontium, and several other elements build-up. They bio-accumulate. So yes, you can eat a radioactive wild hog, and be safe. If you eat them for dinner once a week, you will very likely, eventually, suffer ill health effects, possibly even cancer. This is not a problem for hog hunters in Germany. It is a problem for Rice farmers in Japan. Because those guys eat a lot of rice, all day, every day. Plus, the rice is often processed into other products, and combined into other foods as starch or protein supplements, so even people who don't eat rice are getting some exposure. After Fukushima, the strategy was not to dump all the radioactive rice. They dumped everything with high levels; and then the rice with medium levels, they mixed it in with uncontaminated rice, to make the overall level low enough to be below regulatory thresholds (which they raised after Fukushima). Now, it's going to be found in your rice-chex cereal in America. Your protein-bar in France. Your chewing gum in Africa. Is any of that going to kill you? It probably raises anyone's chance of eventually getting cancer by .001%. Yes, there's no way to prove it, no way to sue anybody, or collect damages. If you survive the cancer, you're still the person who has to pay for it. If you don't get cancer, you still pay for it, because your insurance premium covers the increased risk to your pool. You - the person affected - pay for this. The people who made profit; the shareholders, don't care.

ComputerGuru 10y ago

> Plus, while nuclear can be done safely, it often isn't Huh? Citation certainly needed since by ANY metric you are 100% incorrect. Count the number of nuclear subs, nuclear power plants, plutonium power sources, controlled fusion reactions in testing, fission reactions being carried out across the globe by nations at different stages of development, etc and tell me it is "often" not done safely. The fact that nuclear is so scary to get wrong is precisely why we (by and large) get it right.

CapitalistCartr 10y ago
That's the problem: by and large isn't good enough. No one wants a meltdown in their country. Its why the US military stopped carrying nuclear weapons in airplane bomb bays; they lost a bunch. With nukes, any is horrifying. A cite? Kyshtym, Chernobyl, Fukushima, . . . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_acc... P.S. I'm still a proponent of nuclear power. It beats coal all to hell. I don't think denying the risks helps; a rational discussion of the benefits and risks of each method better serves us all.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  The US military stopped carrying nukes in planes because of ICBMs.
  - CapitalistCartr 10y ago
    We had ICBM's before 1970. It was dropping too many that killed it. Like 4 on Spain. Solid-fueled missiles didn't help ease the fear over a first strike much; they're still vulnerable.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      The Minuteman entered service in 1962, and the long-lived Minuteman III entered service in 1968 - same exact year Operation Chrome Dome ended. It became pretty clear that ICBMs were a lot more effective than trying to get a B-52 through Soviet air defense.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

0xfeba 10y ago

> Plus, while nuclear can be done safely, it often isn't, and when it fails, it fails catastrophically. And thus is the problem with the court of public opinion on this. Nuclear is the safest per Kw/h, period. But yes, there are accidents and they are plastered over the news for weeks. Whereas coal mining disasters? Well it's just coal mining, not related to the coal power plant that coal was all headed too.