9 ms·

>Its just that when something goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong. That makes more of an emotional reaction in the general public than the scattered and sporadic d

>Its just that when something goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong. That makes more of an emotional reaction in the general public than the scattered and sporadic deaths in other industries, in which there are sadly many, many more. I don't this explanation really holds true. For example, there is a single failure with a hydroelectric dam [1] that has killed more people than have died as a result of all nuclear-power related deaths, and in more spectacular fashion. I think it has something to do with the expense and scale of nuclear power, but also something to do with nuclear energy being a thing far outside the natural experience of most people. Nuclear power is also connected to nuclear weapons, which, understandably, has a strong negative connotation to most people. Better science education might resolve some of the emotional problems connected to nuclear energy. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

ardit33 9y ago
All that, and Chernobyl. I was a kid when it happened, but it affected most of Europe, (the radiation ended up going all the way to Sweden and Italy). It is hard to measure the cancer rates due to it, but the numbers are significant. " (The 95% confidence levels are 27,000 to 108,000 cancers and 12,000 to 57,000 deaths.) In addition, as of 2005, some 6,000 thyroid cancers and 15 thyroid cancer deaths have been attributed to Chernobyl. That number will grow with time." Nuclear power failure has the power to create a wasteland of its surrounding for millennia, that's why nobody wants them on their backyard.
- elsonrodriguez 9y ago
  Nuclear power creates a wasteland of surrounding areas. Fossil fuels create a wasteland of the world.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    The fight is no longer between fossil and nuclear; its nuclear versus renewables. And renewables are winning.
    - elsonrodriguez 9y ago
      Has there been consensus on whether renewables can power our society and industry on their own? Or for that matter generate more power than we currently need to drive further progress?
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        It only takes a few hours of sunlight to power humanity for a year. The amount of energy is not the question, it's scaling up collection.
        elsonrodriguez 9y ago
        For a while the amount of energy is certainly a question. If it takes 100 gigawatts to produce a solar panel, but that panel only returns 75 gigawatts over its usable lifespan (including maintenance), then that's not a good look. Even if solar generated 1.25 watts per watt to contruct/transport/install/maintain, it still isn't enough. Now if solar is at the point where it was generate 5 watts per 1 watt, we're in business.
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Google "solar pv eroei". We are past the point of positive energy return.
        elsonrodriguez 9y ago
        Wikipedia says: 80.0 for Coal 100.0 for Hydro 75 for Nuclear 18.0 for Wind 6.8 for PV Solar I saw lower estimates for PV solar elsewhere hovering around 1.0 though, apparently the methods are controversial. Either way, 6.8 is a still science experiment territory compared to other methods.
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Come on, knock out being disingenuous. Science experiment territory? California and Germany have so much solar generation, they're having to take active measures to deal with the supply. And solar PV manufacturing capacity is only growing each year. The U.K. Is closing the last of its coal plants in less than 5 years: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/19/how-coal-lost-power-britain https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/19/how-coal-lo...
- ageofwant 9y ago
  You mention Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in human history, today, 30 years later, Chernobyl sits at the heart of a wildlife haven. What is more alive and supports more species, Chernobyl or Manhattan? "According to the World Health Organization in 2011, urban outdoor air pollution, from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is estimated to cause 1.3 million deaths worldwide per year and indoor air pollution from biomass and fossil fuel burning is estimated to cause approximately 2 million premature deaths.[14] In 2013 a team of researchers estimated the number of premature deaths caused by particulate matter in outdoor air pollution as 2.1 million, occurring annually" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
  - CPLX 9y ago
    > What is more alive and supports more species, Chernobyl or Manhattan? Well yes and a decomposing corpse riddled with maggots is clearly supporting a diverse community of organisms as well. Pity that's not the standard.
  - beders 9y ago
    No one makes the case burning fossil fuels is better. Renewables are cheap enough and practical enough to end all this.
  - whipoodle 9y ago
    "Chernobyl was actually good" is one of the more interesting takes in support of nuclear power, I'll give you that.
- wbl 9y ago
  That's assuming linear no threshold models which are not supported in this range by epidemiology.
- ambicapter 9y ago
  So the 95% confidence level of cancers and deaths is 3x to 4000x the actual measured cancers and deaths? What is going on here?
- roenxi 9y ago
  Where are you sourcing these numbers from? The WHO says "up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl". I also have a new quote for nuclear talks: > Alongside radiation-induced deaths and diseases, the report labels the mental health impact of Chernobyl as “the largest public health problem created by the accident” and partially attributes this damaging psychological impact to a lack of accurate information. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/
thephyber 9y ago
> Better science education might resolve some of the emotional problems connected to nuclear energy. Persuasion is a science that has been perfected by religions/cults, magicians, marketers and sales people. Scientists, mathematicians, economists, and policy makes don't wield that weapon very well. You can spit accurate + well researched stats that argue your case until you are blue in the face, but not everyone listens to polite, well researched Oxford-style debates. You are competing with entrenched interests like oil and gas lobbies, doubt purveyers who have purchased professors with grants, the wild imaginations of Hollywood, and the association of "nuclear" in the minds of people who lived through the Cold War.
makomk 9y ago
Well, that hydroelectric dam was built in part as a flood control measure, and effectively ended up being rebuilt a few years later to put a stop to the repeated flooding that occurred without it. It simply wasn't the same kind of tradeoff.

ardit33 9y ago

All that, and Chernobyl. I was a kid when it happened, but it affected most of Europe, (the radiation ended up going all the way to Sweden and Italy). It is hard to measure the cancer rates due to it, but the numbers are significant. " (The 95% confidence levels are 27,000 to 108,000 cancers and 12,000 to 57,000 deaths.) In addition, as of 2005, some 6,000 thyroid cancers and 15 thyroid cancer deaths have been attributed to Chernobyl. That number will grow with time." Nuclear power failure has the power to create a wasteland of its surrounding for millennia, that's why nobody wants them on their backyard.

elsonrodriguez 9y ago
Nuclear power creates a wasteland of surrounding areas. Fossil fuels create a wasteland of the world.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  The fight is no longer between fossil and nuclear; its nuclear versus renewables. And renewables are winning.
  - elsonrodriguez 9y ago
    Has there been consensus on whether renewables can power our society and industry on their own? Or for that matter generate more power than we currently need to drive further progress?
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      It only takes a few hours of sunlight to power humanity for a year. The amount of energy is not the question, it's scaling up collection.
      - elsonrodriguez 9y ago
        For a while the amount of energy is certainly a question. If it takes 100 gigawatts to produce a solar panel, but that panel only returns 75 gigawatts over its usable lifespan (including maintenance), then that's not a good look. Even if solar generated 1.25 watts per watt to contruct/transport/install/maintain, it still isn't enough. Now if solar is at the point where it was generate 5 watts per 1 watt, we're in business.
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Google "solar pv eroei". We are past the point of positive energy return.
        elsonrodriguez 9y ago
        Wikipedia says: 80.0 for Coal 100.0 for Hydro 75 for Nuclear 18.0 for Wind 6.8 for PV Solar I saw lower estimates for PV solar elsewhere hovering around 1.0 though, apparently the methods are controversial. Either way, 6.8 is a still science experiment territory compared to other methods.
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Come on, knock out being disingenuous. Science experiment territory? California and Germany have so much solar generation, they're having to take active measures to deal with the supply. And solar PV manufacturing capacity is only growing each year. The U.K. Is closing the last of its coal plants in less than 5 years: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/19/how-coal-lost-power-britain https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/19/how-coal-lo...
ageofwant 9y ago
You mention Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in human history, today, 30 years later, Chernobyl sits at the heart of a wildlife haven. What is more alive and supports more species, Chernobyl or Manhattan? "According to the World Health Organization in 2011, urban outdoor air pollution, from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is estimated to cause 1.3 million deaths worldwide per year and indoor air pollution from biomass and fossil fuel burning is estimated to cause approximately 2 million premature deaths.[14] In 2013 a team of researchers estimated the number of premature deaths caused by particulate matter in outdoor air pollution as 2.1 million, occurring annually" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
- CPLX 9y ago
  > What is more alive and supports more species, Chernobyl or Manhattan? Well yes and a decomposing corpse riddled with maggots is clearly supporting a diverse community of organisms as well. Pity that's not the standard.
- beders 9y ago
  No one makes the case burning fossil fuels is better. Renewables are cheap enough and practical enough to end all this.
- whipoodle 9y ago
  "Chernobyl was actually good" is one of the more interesting takes in support of nuclear power, I'll give you that.
wbl 9y ago
That's assuming linear no threshold models which are not supported in this range by epidemiology.
ambicapter 9y ago
So the 95% confidence level of cancers and deaths is 3x to 4000x the actual measured cancers and deaths? What is going on here?
roenxi 9y ago
Where are you sourcing these numbers from? The WHO says "up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl". I also have a new quote for nuclear talks: > Alongside radiation-induced deaths and diseases, the report labels the mental health impact of Chernobyl as “the largest public health problem created by the accident” and partially attributes this damaging psychological impact to a lack of accurate information. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

thephyber 9y ago

> Better science education might resolve some of the emotional problems connected to nuclear energy. Persuasion is a science that has been perfected by religions/cults, magicians, marketers and sales people. Scientists, mathematicians, economists, and policy makes don't wield that weapon very well. You can spit accurate + well researched stats that argue your case until you are blue in the face, but not everyone listens to polite, well researched Oxford-style debates. You are competing with entrenched interests like oil and gas lobbies, doubt purveyers who have purchased professors with grants, the wild imaginations of Hollywood, and the association of "nuclear" in the minds of people who lived through the Cold War.

makomk 9y ago

Well, that hydroelectric dam was built in part as a flood control measure, and effectively ended up being rebuilt a few years later to put a stop to the repeated flooding that occurred without it. It simply wasn't the same kind of tradeoff.