5 ms·

> More people fall off roofs installing solar panels, then die in nuclear accidents. I think the concern is that in addition to killing people, nuclear acciden

> More people fall off roofs installing solar panels, then die in nuclear accidents. I think the concern is that in addition to killing people, nuclear accidents cause gene mutations, etc as well? Another concern I have with this sort of argument is the ratio of people getting killed to using it, etc. Other than that I do agree that there is FUD around Nuclear energy. But this is not a great rebuttal IMO.

Someone 9y ago
Yes, nuclear accidents increase mutation rate and with it the occurrence of various forms of cancer, but it seems those mutations aren't passed on to next generations (layman's explanation: if it doesn't kill you, it's unlikely to have an effect on your children. If it _does_ kill you, you aren't likely to have children) http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html: "No statistically significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy outcomes was seen among children of survivors. Monitoring of nearly all pregnancies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki began in 1948 and continued for six years. [...] In addition, a clinical health study of about 12,000 individuals was conducted between 2002 and 2006 with a focus on lifestyle diseases, based on the idea that adulthood is when disorders from radiation effects may develop. In this study, possible relationships between parental exposure and a combination of six multifactorial diseases (e.g., diabetes and hypertension) were analyzed, taking into consideration such lifestyle habits as drinking and smoking. The results showed no evidence at this time of increased risk of these multifactorial diseases among the target individuals. However, given that the subjects were still young at the time of the health examinations, with an average age of 48.6, it would be desirable to continue the clinical health study of this fixed cohort." However, https://www.nap.edu/read/1800/chapter/3 https://www.nap.edu/read/1800/chapter/3: "WHETHER THE ATOMIC BOMBS dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki will have detectable genetic effects on the Japanese is a question of widespread interest. The purpose of the present note is to show briefly that (1) many difficulties beset any attempt to obtain a valid answer to this question and (2) even after a long-term study, such as that outlined below, it still may not be possible to determine just how much genetic damage was done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
pavement 9y ago
It's the exclusion zones that create a no man's land for decades or more every time there's an accident. The exclusion zones usually encompass and affect residential areas and water supplies. People who buy houses or own homes in proximity to potential areas of effect take this point of contention very seriously. Geography and evacuation infrastructure often plays a key role in arguments. From an urban planning perspective, over decades, creeping population density can paint pictures of curious outcomes in the shadow of an incident. Many people have a hard time thinking in these terms. Yes, people live near active volcanoes too, but even with that, the idea is that you can return maybe a week later, and not deal with an eruption for the rest of your life. People have an odd calculus for thess kinds of things.
- stonogo 9y ago
  "Every time" is wild exaggeration of a sort that derails reasonable conversation.
  - praneshp 9y ago
    'pavement provided a very reasonable comment, no?

Someone 9y ago

Yes, nuclear accidents increase mutation rate and with it the occurrence of various forms of cancer, but it seems those mutations aren't passed on to next generations (layman's explanation: if it doesn't kill you, it's unlikely to have an effect on your children. If it _does_ kill you, you aren't likely to have children) http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html: "No statistically significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy outcomes was seen among children of survivors. Monitoring of nearly all pregnancies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki began in 1948 and continued for six years. [...] In addition, a clinical health study of about 12,000 individuals was conducted between 2002 and 2006 with a focus on lifestyle diseases, based on the idea that adulthood is when disorders from radiation effects may develop. In this study, possible relationships between parental exposure and a combination of six multifactorial diseases (e.g., diabetes and hypertension) were analyzed, taking into consideration such lifestyle habits as drinking and smoking. The results showed no evidence at this time of increased risk of these multifactorial diseases among the target individuals. However, given that the subjects were still young at the time of the health examinations, with an average age of 48.6, it would be desirable to continue the clinical health study of this fixed cohort." However, https://www.nap.edu/read/1800/chapter/3 https://www.nap.edu/read/1800/chapter/3: "WHETHER THE ATOMIC BOMBS dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki will have detectable genetic effects on the Japanese is a question of widespread interest. The purpose of the present note is to show briefly that (1) many difficulties beset any attempt to obtain a valid answer to this question and (2) even after a long-term study, such as that outlined below, it still may not be possible to determine just how much genetic damage was done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

pavement 9y ago

It's the exclusion zones that create a no man's land for decades or more every time there's an accident. The exclusion zones usually encompass and affect residential areas and water supplies. People who buy houses or own homes in proximity to potential areas of effect take this point of contention very seriously. Geography and evacuation infrastructure often plays a key role in arguments. From an urban planning perspective, over decades, creeping population density can paint pictures of curious outcomes in the shadow of an incident. Many people have a hard time thinking in these terms. Yes, people live near active volcanoes too, but even with that, the idea is that you can return maybe a week later, and not deal with an eruption for the rest of your life. People have an odd calculus for thess kinds of things.

stonogo 9y ago
"Every time" is wild exaggeration of a sort that derails reasonable conversation.
- praneshp 9y ago
  'pavement provided a very reasonable comment, no?