3 ms·

Are you comparing solar installation accidents to the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters?

by throw2016 9y ago

Broken_Hippo 9y ago
Yes and no. They aren't the same thing at all, obviously. But that said, it is much more likely that someone die from installing or servicing solar panels than someone die from a nuclear incident. We tend to be afraid of abnormal but possibly fatal or maiming events - the ones that are newsworthy - compared to the risks we face on a daily basis. Which is why we are cautious when climbing a ladder twice a year but not when we get into the shower as an older adult, even though shower accidents, including broken hips, are incredibly common. The poster is putting the actual risk into perspective.
GVIrish 9y ago
Why not? The point is not that a Fukushima or Chernobyl should be considered to have the same impact as falling off roofs, clearly that's not true. The point is that the risk of death with nuclear plants isn't nearly as high as people feel it is, even when factoring in the high-profile accidents that have occurred. Right now, a lot of people have an irrationally over-inflated perception of the risk posed by nuclear power.
- throw2016 9y ago
  This is reductive. It's not reasonable to simply ignore the devastating fallout of nuclear accidents beyond human causalities. This doesn't engage with the real world consequences of nuclear accidents that are devastating to life and the environment, long lasting and extremely expensive and complex to cleanup.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    Wonderful way to create wildlife refuges, though.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - GVIrish 9y ago
    Not saying we should ignore the environmental impact, that's what I was getting at in my first sentence when I said falling off a roof and a nuclear meltdown clearly aren't the same level of event. I'm simply saying that people fear nuclear power because they think there's a high risk that a lot of people will die when that hasn't proven to be the case thus far. There's a real discussion to be made on the trade-offs between the potential environmental damage caused by an accident versus the looming threat of climate change. Unfortunately that discussion isn't really being had because nuclear power's public perception hurdle is so great.
  - nickik 9y ago
    On any measure you look at nuclear is superior. It kills less people, it uses less land, it uses less resources, it uses less mining and so on. Areas of nuclear fallout and in protection zones are actually reclaimed by nature and animals don't give a shit about living there. Environmentalist should love nuclear. There is that movement called 'eco-modernist' who subscribe to that. > nuclear accidents that are devastating to life Hardly. Most of the people that were evacuated were not in danger, devastating to their live was government action because of fear mongering. Far more people died of the evacuation then of the radiation. People are again living in cities near Chernobyl and their cancer rates are not unusual.

Are you comparing solar installation accidents to the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters?

Yes and no. They aren't the same thing at all, obviously. But that said, it is much more likely that someone die from installing or servicing solar panels than someone die from a nuclear incident. We tend to be afraid of abnormal but possibly fatal or maiming events - the ones that are newsworthy - compared to the risks we face on a daily basis. Which is why we are cautious when climbing a ladder twice a year but not when we get into the shower as an older adult, even though shower accidents, including broken hips, are incredibly common. The poster is putting the actual risk into perspective.

GVIrish 9y ago

Why not? The point is not that a Fukushima or Chernobyl should be considered to have the same impact as falling off roofs, clearly that's not true. The point is that the risk of death with nuclear plants isn't nearly as high as people feel it is, even when factoring in the high-profile accidents that have occurred. Right now, a lot of people have an irrationally over-inflated perception of the risk posed by nuclear power.

throw2016 9y ago
This is reductive. It's not reasonable to simply ignore the devastating fallout of nuclear accidents beyond human causalities. This doesn't engage with the real world consequences of nuclear accidents that are devastating to life and the environment, long lasting and extremely expensive and complex to cleanup.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  Wonderful way to create wildlife refuges, though.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- GVIrish 9y ago
  Not saying we should ignore the environmental impact, that's what I was getting at in my first sentence when I said falling off a roof and a nuclear meltdown clearly aren't the same level of event. I'm simply saying that people fear nuclear power because they think there's a high risk that a lot of people will die when that hasn't proven to be the case thus far. There's a real discussion to be made on the trade-offs between the potential environmental damage caused by an accident versus the looming threat of climate change. Unfortunately that discussion isn't really being had because nuclear power's public perception hurdle is so great.
- nickik 9y ago
  On any measure you look at nuclear is superior. It kills less people, it uses less land, it uses less resources, it uses less mining and so on. Areas of nuclear fallout and in protection zones are actually reclaimed by nature and animals don't give a shit about living there. Environmentalist should love nuclear. There is that movement called 'eco-modernist' who subscribe to that. > nuclear accidents that are devastating to life Hardly. Most of the people that were evacuated were not in danger, devastating to their live was government action because of fear mongering. Far more people died of the evacuation then of the radiation. People are again living in cities near Chernobyl and their cancer rates are not unusual.