3 ms·

I'm anti-nuclear in Taiwan, mostly to the earthquake risk. I'm apathetic about nuclear in Switzerland. From reading the ScienceMag article that nerdy linked to

I'm anti-nuclear in Taiwan, mostly to the earthquake risk. I'm apathetic about nuclear in Switzerland. From reading the ScienceMag article that nerdy linked to, I learned that PF-4 has been unable to make new weapons for 4 years due to their safety staff quitting. I joined some anti-nuclear protests before, but those protests aren't targeting any individuals. Meanwhile my best-case scenario (shutdown of weapons production) is happening, because the staff quit due to bad management. Good things are happening for the wrong reasons!

imglorp 9y ago
I'm curious about the reasoning behind an anti-nuclear power position. We've seen just about the worst that can happen, TMI, Cherynobyl and Fukushima. All three were due to human error: mismanagement of the system and/or mismanagement of the mitigation afterwards. These were terrible things nobody would want in their town, but they are manageable and bounded. Compared to the global disaster in progress, humans burning things, a nuclear plant mishap seems preferable, no? Globally, we're facing a mass extinction, more intense weather, and loss of low elevation islands and cities everywhere. What's worse is the effect is not bounded, it will continue to get worsefor centuries as we burn more stuff, for the whole planet. Is this math not compelling?
- peterburkimsher 9y ago
  You said it yourself! "terrible things nobody would want in their town". Where the natural risk is higher (e.g. Fukushima), my answer is "just say no". Where the risk is manageable (deserts, a bunker under the Alps), I don't mind so much. Nuclear is better than coal or oil, by a long way. Renewables would be great, but only hydro has a real chance to be competitive at this stage. So maybe nuclear is needed in some less-populated, geologically stable regions. I trust location more than any human safety protocol, because of the reasons in the article.
  - tdb7893 9y ago
    I think part of the problem with nuclear is that the consequences are pretty clear. Burning fossil fuels puts a lot of particulates into the air that overall kills some people but we don't really think about it. It would be interesting to see what type of power was responsible for the most deaths per kWh
    - imglorp 9y ago
      The climate related deaths will rise, but humanity is having a hard time thinking long term about it. Just this fall, Irma, Harvey, and Jose took a number of lives and many billions in cleanup. Weather deaths per year might be a useful statistic to follow, including heat and cold deaths.
kobeya 9y ago
It’s pretty easy to design nuclear reactors that are earthquake safe. I would think that an island nation like Taiwan with unreliable international relations would benefit from a locally supplied power source like nuclear. This is a world of trade offs. It is easy to point to the bad,m in one approach, but you must also evaluate the bad of the alternatives.

imglorp 9y ago

I'm curious about the reasoning behind an anti-nuclear power position. We've seen just about the worst that can happen, TMI, Cherynobyl and Fukushima. All three were due to human error: mismanagement of the system and/or mismanagement of the mitigation afterwards. These were terrible things nobody would want in their town, but they are manageable and bounded. Compared to the global disaster in progress, humans burning things, a nuclear plant mishap seems preferable, no? Globally, we're facing a mass extinction, more intense weather, and loss of low elevation islands and cities everywhere. What's worse is the effect is not bounded, it will continue to get worsefor centuries as we burn more stuff, for the whole planet. Is this math not compelling?

peterburkimsher 9y ago
You said it yourself! "terrible things nobody would want in their town". Where the natural risk is higher (e.g. Fukushima), my answer is "just say no". Where the risk is manageable (deserts, a bunker under the Alps), I don't mind so much. Nuclear is better than coal or oil, by a long way. Renewables would be great, but only hydro has a real chance to be competitive at this stage. So maybe nuclear is needed in some less-populated, geologically stable regions. I trust location more than any human safety protocol, because of the reasons in the article.
- tdb7893 9y ago
  I think part of the problem with nuclear is that the consequences are pretty clear. Burning fossil fuels puts a lot of particulates into the air that overall kills some people but we don't really think about it. It would be interesting to see what type of power was responsible for the most deaths per kWh
  - imglorp 9y ago
    The climate related deaths will rise, but humanity is having a hard time thinking long term about it. Just this fall, Irma, Harvey, and Jose took a number of lives and many billions in cleanup. Weather deaths per year might be a useful statistic to follow, including heat and cold deaths.

kobeya 9y ago

It’s pretty easy to design nuclear reactors that are earthquake safe. I would think that an island nation like Taiwan with unreliable international relations would benefit from a locally supplied power source like nuclear. This is a world of trade offs. It is easy to point to the bad,m in one approach, but you must also evaluate the bad of the alternatives.