3 ms·

Isn't the point that even with the current mixture of managment, it's safer? However, I don't know if these numbers include the long-term risk from storing/proc

Isn't the point that even with the current mixture of managment, it's safer? However, I don't know if these numbers include the long-term risk from storing/processing the spent fuel.

vidarh 10y ago
Yes, we've demonstrated that you can basically mismanage plants into meltdown, and even then nuclear still ends up killing fewer people.
- blowski 10y ago
  Over a period of 50 years, you can mismanage a couple of plants and still kill fewer people. But not the entire industry.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    I don't know what you are trying to say. 50 years of operation of hundreds of plants. We could have had a repeat of all of the accidents every year and it would still be one of the safest alternatives. Heck, we could have Chernobyl every year, and even based on the current worst case estimates of reduced life expectancy and counting every one of them as a death, we'd still not compensate for 1 Banqiao failure, or more than 1-2 years worth of coal. But we're not having a Chernobyl every year. What we are having is vast numbers of preventable deaths due to other types of power generation. We're talking millions dead over the last 50 years due to other types of plants.
    - chadgeidel 10y ago
      I'm not saying you are wrong - I actually want to believe this statistic, but has anyone actually compiled the data to back this up? Specifically - "we could have Chernobyl every year ... we'd still not compensate for more than 1-2 years worth of coal"
    - davrosthedalek 10y ago
      I think you have to be careful here. It's entirely unclear how small dose exposure over long times damage humans. There might be a threshold effect: Some people speculated that low doses actually help, as they trigger the DNA self-repair systems. Slightly more, and that self-repair can't help anymore. So 1 Chernobyl might be fine for people further way, let's say, in the US, 2 or 10 or ... and you suddenly get a lot of Cancer deaths. If you look at what medicine deemed as safe, the limits were reduced every couple of years.

Isn't the point that even with the current mixture of managment, it's safer? However, I don't know if these numbers include the long-term risk from storing/processing the spent fuel.

vidarh 10y ago

Yes, we've demonstrated that you can basically mismanage plants into meltdown, and even then nuclear still ends up killing fewer people.

blowski 10y ago
Over a period of 50 years, you can mismanage a couple of plants and still kill fewer people. But not the entire industry.
- vidarh 10y ago
  I don't know what you are trying to say. 50 years of operation of hundreds of plants. We could have had a repeat of all of the accidents every year and it would still be one of the safest alternatives. Heck, we could have Chernobyl every year, and even based on the current worst case estimates of reduced life expectancy and counting every one of them as a death, we'd still not compensate for 1 Banqiao failure, or more than 1-2 years worth of coal. But we're not having a Chernobyl every year. What we are having is vast numbers of preventable deaths due to other types of power generation. We're talking millions dead over the last 50 years due to other types of plants.
  - chadgeidel 10y ago
    I'm not saying you are wrong - I actually want to believe this statistic, but has anyone actually compiled the data to back this up? Specifically - "we could have Chernobyl every year ... we'd still not compensate for more than 1-2 years worth of coal"
  - davrosthedalek 10y ago
    I think you have to be careful here. It's entirely unclear how small dose exposure over long times damage humans. There might be a threshold effect: Some people speculated that low doses actually help, as they trigger the DNA self-repair systems. Slightly more, and that self-repair can't help anymore. So 1 Chernobyl might be fine for people further way, let's say, in the US, 2 or 10 or ... and you suddenly get a lot of Cancer deaths. If you look at what medicine deemed as safe, the limits were reduced every couple of years.