4 ms·

>and then sneer at those with doubts as ignorant and emotional rather than logical That's because you reply with things like this. >sounds like something a su

>and then sneer at those with doubts as ignorant and emotional rather than logical That's because you reply with things like this. >sounds like something a supervillain would say.

beat 9y ago
When you tell me something "completely eliminates" the possibility of failure in complex industrial design - you're being emotional rather than logical. Look, I'm actually pro-nuclear. But I think the arguments made for nuclear power are mostly awful, driven by techno-fetishism and wishful thinking rather than real logic. The "But I'm logical and you're just emotional!" argument is itself an emotional argument, a rush to claim a moral high ground (you'll see the exact same style and phrasing used in any political argument where privileged white guys are dismissing the points of women and minorities). As others wisely pointed out in this thread, nuclear power suffers from a problem of feeling dangerous even when it's safe - and likewise, global warming feels safe even when it's an existential threat to civilization. If you want to make progress rather than score points, you need to take the emotional nature of the argument into account. I didn't say your argument sounds like something a supervillain would say because I think the technology is bad. I said it because I think the phrasing is bad. Wise up.
- outworlder 9y ago
  > When you tell me something "completely eliminates" the possibility of failure in complex industrial design - you're being emotional rather than logical. No. Modern reactor designs are actually designed in a way that makes it difficult to maintain the reaction. If you are not actively maintaining it, then it will stop on its own. This is opposed to the most common existing designs, where you need to expend effort to _stop_ the reaction. This is not to say that they cannot fail in some novel ways.
  - jbg_ 9y ago
    > This is not to say that they cannot fail in some novel ways. So, then, they do not "completely eliminate" the possibility of failure. Your last sentence seems to contradict the "No." at the beginning of your reply.
    - rtx 9y ago
      They consider all the possibilities possible.
    - Recurecur 9y ago
      > So, then, they do not "completely eliminate" the possibility of failure. Your last sentence seems to contradict the "No." at the beginning of your reply. I didn't say anything about "completely eliminating the possibility of failure". I said "completely eliminate the possibility of meltdown" which is in fact correct. ThorCon plans on operating the plants about 100 feet underground, which will even mitigate a deliberate attack with an airliner. There is no way to make anything absolutely, 100% safe, but this approach is mighty close. That is in contrast with fossil fuel pollution, which kills hundreds of thousands of people a year.
    - ntpl 9y ago
      To be fair, Recurecur said: > New reactor designs completely eliminate the possibility of meltdown. not necessarily of any failure, to which they were willing to accept that things can fail in novel ways, just not meltdowns in their view.
- hueving 9y ago
  >I didn't say your argument sounds like something a supervillain would say because I think the technology is bad. I said it because I think the phrasing is bad. Wise up. Not my argument, but the point is that comparing something to "what a supervillain" would say is an emotional, not logical, response. What supervillain introduces technologies that are immune to whole classes of failures? >When you tell me something "completely eliminates" the possibility of failure in complex industrial design - you're being emotional rather than logical. If someone proposes switching from coal powered plants to natural gas powered plants with the argument that it completely eliminates the possibility of coal dust as a byproduct, would you deride them as well?

>and then sneer at those with doubts as ignorant and emotional rather than logical That's because you reply with things like this. >sounds like something a supervillain would say.

beat 9y ago

When you tell me something "completely eliminates" the possibility of failure in complex industrial design - you're being emotional rather than logical. Look, I'm actually pro-nuclear. But I think the arguments made for nuclear power are mostly awful, driven by techno-fetishism and wishful thinking rather than real logic. The "But I'm logical and you're just emotional!" argument is itself an emotional argument, a rush to claim a moral high ground (you'll see the exact same style and phrasing used in any political argument where privileged white guys are dismissing the points of women and minorities). As others wisely pointed out in this thread, nuclear power suffers from a problem of feeling dangerous even when it's safe - and likewise, global warming feels safe even when it's an existential threat to civilization. If you want to make progress rather than score points, you need to take the emotional nature of the argument into account. I didn't say your argument sounds like something a supervillain would say because I think the technology is bad. I said it because I think the phrasing is bad. Wise up.

outworlder 9y ago
> When you tell me something "completely eliminates" the possibility of failure in complex industrial design - you're being emotional rather than logical. No. Modern reactor designs are actually designed in a way that makes it difficult to maintain the reaction. If you are not actively maintaining it, then it will stop on its own. This is opposed to the most common existing designs, where you need to expend effort to _stop_ the reaction. This is not to say that they cannot fail in some novel ways.
- jbg_ 9y ago
  > This is not to say that they cannot fail in some novel ways. So, then, they do not "completely eliminate" the possibility of failure. Your last sentence seems to contradict the "No." at the beginning of your reply.
  - rtx 9y ago
    They consider all the possibilities possible.
  - Recurecur 9y ago
    > So, then, they do not "completely eliminate" the possibility of failure. Your last sentence seems to contradict the "No." at the beginning of your reply. I didn't say anything about "completely eliminating the possibility of failure". I said "completely eliminate the possibility of meltdown" which is in fact correct. ThorCon plans on operating the plants about 100 feet underground, which will even mitigate a deliberate attack with an airliner. There is no way to make anything absolutely, 100% safe, but this approach is mighty close. That is in contrast with fossil fuel pollution, which kills hundreds of thousands of people a year.
  - ntpl 9y ago
    To be fair, Recurecur said: > New reactor designs completely eliminate the possibility of meltdown. not necessarily of any failure, to which they were willing to accept that things can fail in novel ways, just not meltdowns in their view.
hueving 9y ago
>I didn't say your argument sounds like something a supervillain would say because I think the technology is bad. I said it because I think the phrasing is bad. Wise up. Not my argument, but the point is that comparing something to "what a supervillain" would say is an emotional, not logical, response. What supervillain introduces technologies that are immune to whole classes of failures? >When you tell me something "completely eliminates" the possibility of failure in complex industrial design - you're being emotional rather than logical. If someone proposes switching from coal powered plants to natural gas powered plants with the argument that it completely eliminates the possibility of coal dust as a byproduct, would you deride them as well?