5 ms·

This will only work in a market with perfect information. When it comes to anything nuclear, I don't think it is controversial to state that this most definitel

by rlpb 9y ago

This will only work in a market with perfect information. When it comes to anything nuclear, I don't think it is controversial to state that this most definitely is not the case. The point of scientific study into this kind of thing is exactly what we need to be objective as a society, and this should be encouraged.

mikeash 9y ago
I don't think imperfect information would be an insurmountable obstacle for this. If people overestimate the damage caused by the contamination, they'll take the buyout. People who think the damage is less important will then be able to buy that property. The net effect will be a migration of people scared of contamination away from the contaminated areas, and of people who don't care about it toward the contaminated areas, which seems fine. In the event that everyone is overly scared of it, then the region will depopulate and the owner of the nuclear plant will be on the hook. They'll owe much more than the damage they actually caused, but I don't see a problem with this. There's no inherent right to damage someone else's health without their consent and then insist that they're wrong about how much the damage is worth. I'm all for objective scientific study into the actual dangers of this stuff. But the cited study goes well beyond that and makes a normative claim that relocation is bad policy. By all means, let's educate everyone on the true dangers of this stuff. Then let's allow them to decide for themselves whether it's worth staying or going. If the argument is that the populace is too ignorant to correctly make that decision, then fix that. I'm very much in favor of nuclear power, but stuff like this doesn't help at all. It's true that people are ignorant of the true dangers, but this isn't going to convince them. "Don't evacuate, it won't kill THAT many of you" doesn't sound like someone making decisions in your own best interests.
- rlpb 9y ago
  > In the event that everyone is overly scared of it, then the region will depopulate and the owner of the nuclear plant will be on the hook. Right. I don't think there will be enough people in the region interested in repopulating. > They'll owe much more than the damage they actually caused, but I don't see a problem with this. There's no inherent right to damage someone else's health without their consent and then insist that they're wrong about how much the damage is worth. I disagree with you here. You're relying on some subjective assessment of what the damage is worth, which I think is uncontroversially an irrational overestimate. Instead, I think it is entirely appropriate for studies to attempt to quantify, objectively, the real value of the damage.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Can there be anything but a subjective estimate of what someone's health and life are worth? We have to put a dollar value on lives in many cases because it's impractical to let each person choose individually. Normal pollution regulations are a good example of this. You'll look at the economic value of lives saved versus economic value of the pollution controls and see which one wins. But I don't see that a nuclear accident requires this. The affected area is relatively small, the damage is already done and can't be reversed, and there's a single responsible party. It becomes practical to handle it economically rather than having the government dictate a solution.
    - rlpb 9y ago
      > Can there be anything but a subjective estimate of what someone's health and life are worth? The requirement is that society reaches an agreement on what that estimate is. Relying solely on the estimate of the victims [and other local people] is not reasonable. There needs to be an equitable way of determining a value. Dismissing studies trying to establish an approach to this is not the way. Sure, it still has to be subjective. But the line between subjectivity and objectivity is a spectrum. More objectivity is possible, and dismissing this out of hand because complete objectivity is not possible is not reasonable.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        We take that approach as a last resort, when direct compensation is not possible. Imagine if I dumped a bunch of toxic waste into your carpet. Would you accept it if I said, well, it would cost $X to completely remove the toxic waste, and the economic value of the DALYs lost by members of your household is $Y < $X, therefore I don't have to do anything? I'm pretty sure such a thing would get laughed out of court. I'd be required to clean it up regardless, or if the value of the cleanup exceeds the value of the house, to buy you out. I'm not allowed to keep poisoning you just because it's too expensive for me to stop. Why should a nuclear accident be handled any differently? The answer to that semi-rhertorical question for other types of pollution is often, "Because there are N polluters and M victims and it's not practical to handle N x M transactions to settle the damages." That doesn't apply here, where there's only one polluter.
- notahacker 9y ago
  If most people are insufficiently scared of it, the company with the most accurate information about the extent of the damage and the most ability to withhold or misleadingly present information stands to benefit (or lose less) financially. That's the imperfect information problem.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    That's true, but it's a completely unrealistic hypothetical given the popular view of nuclear power right now. If that popular view ever shifts too far the other way then we should figure out how to handle that, but for now it's not worth considering unless you want to do it for fun.

by rlpb 9y ago

mikeash 9y ago

I don't think imperfect information would be an insurmountable obstacle for this. If people overestimate the damage caused by the contamination, they'll take the buyout. People who think the damage is less important will then be able to buy that property. The net effect will be a migration of people scared of contamination away from the contaminated areas, and of people who don't care about it toward the contaminated areas, which seems fine. In the event that everyone is overly scared of it, then the region will depopulate and the owner of the nuclear plant will be on the hook. They'll owe much more than the damage they actually caused, but I don't see a problem with this. There's no inherent right to damage someone else's health without their consent and then insist that they're wrong about how much the damage is worth. I'm all for objective scientific study into the actual dangers of this stuff. But the cited study goes well beyond that and makes a normative claim that relocation is bad policy. By all means, let's educate everyone on the true dangers of this stuff. Then let's allow them to decide for themselves whether it's worth staying or going. If the argument is that the populace is too ignorant to correctly make that decision, then fix that. I'm very much in favor of nuclear power, but stuff like this doesn't help at all. It's true that people are ignorant of the true dangers, but this isn't going to convince them. "Don't evacuate, it won't kill THAT many of you" doesn't sound like someone making decisions in your own best interests.

rlpb 9y ago
> In the event that everyone is overly scared of it, then the region will depopulate and the owner of the nuclear plant will be on the hook. Right. I don't think there will be enough people in the region interested in repopulating. > They'll owe much more than the damage they actually caused, but I don't see a problem with this. There's no inherent right to damage someone else's health without their consent and then insist that they're wrong about how much the damage is worth. I disagree with you here. You're relying on some subjective assessment of what the damage is worth, which I think is uncontroversially an irrational overestimate. Instead, I think it is entirely appropriate for studies to attempt to quantify, objectively, the real value of the damage.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Can there be anything but a subjective estimate of what someone's health and life are worth? We have to put a dollar value on lives in many cases because it's impractical to let each person choose individually. Normal pollution regulations are a good example of this. You'll look at the economic value of lives saved versus economic value of the pollution controls and see which one wins. But I don't see that a nuclear accident requires this. The affected area is relatively small, the damage is already done and can't be reversed, and there's a single responsible party. It becomes practical to handle it economically rather than having the government dictate a solution.
  - rlpb 9y ago
    > Can there be anything but a subjective estimate of what someone's health and life are worth? The requirement is that society reaches an agreement on what that estimate is. Relying solely on the estimate of the victims [and other local people] is not reasonable. There needs to be an equitable way of determining a value. Dismissing studies trying to establish an approach to this is not the way. Sure, it still has to be subjective. But the line between subjectivity and objectivity is a spectrum. More objectivity is possible, and dismissing this out of hand because complete objectivity is not possible is not reasonable.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      We take that approach as a last resort, when direct compensation is not possible. Imagine if I dumped a bunch of toxic waste into your carpet. Would you accept it if I said, well, it would cost $X to completely remove the toxic waste, and the economic value of the DALYs lost by members of your household is $Y < $X, therefore I don't have to do anything? I'm pretty sure such a thing would get laughed out of court. I'd be required to clean it up regardless, or if the value of the cleanup exceeds the value of the house, to buy you out. I'm not allowed to keep poisoning you just because it's too expensive for me to stop. Why should a nuclear accident be handled any differently? The answer to that semi-rhertorical question for other types of pollution is often, "Because there are N polluters and M victims and it's not practical to handle N x M transactions to settle the damages." That doesn't apply here, where there's only one polluter.
notahacker 9y ago
If most people are insufficiently scared of it, the company with the most accurate information about the extent of the damage and the most ability to withhold or misleadingly present information stands to benefit (or lose less) financially. That's the imperfect information problem.
- mikeash 9y ago
  That's true, but it's a completely unrealistic hypothetical given the popular view of nuclear power right now. If that popular view ever shifts too far the other way then we should figure out how to handle that, but for now it's not worth considering unless you want to do it for fun.