3 ms·

I don't disagree, but this is saying more about how miserable nuclear fission is than anything else. If we have a path which involves zero radioactive waste, a

I don't disagree, but this is saying more about how miserable nuclear fission is than anything else. If we have a path which involves zero radioactive waste, and zero biologically-active radioactive effluents, obviating the need for nuclear anything - why would we bother?

davrosthedalek 9y ago
Assuming that path is actually viable, which is debatable, that path might have other risks. It's not clear a priori where the total risk is lower. IIRC, wind power has, for example, a rather high accident rate for workers. Impact on birds was also something discussed. Massive solar power plants in Africa, for example, have an associated political risk.
mpweiher 9y ago
Little known fact: fission is currently our safest and cleanest energy source. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all...
- newnewpdro 9y ago
  Tell that to the residents of Japan.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    Precisely. Deaths from the Tsunami: 15895 Deaths from radiation: 0 Note that the deaths include those from technology that failed due to the Tsunami. And note that by "little known fact", I mean "fact that is so little known that people 'know' the opposite of what is actually true"
    - newnewpdro 9y ago
      You're willfully choosing to focus on provable deaths from acute radiation poisoning as some kind of metric of general safety. Anything requiring the immediate long-term evacuation of an entire prefecture in a failure mode is obviously unsafe. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
      - mpweiher 9y ago
        I never mentioned acute radiation poisoning. You are willfully ignoring the fact that all forms of energy pose hazards, and that the hazards posed by other forms of energy are vastly higher, usually several orders of magnitude. And you are reacting emotionally, "oh my god, nuclear horrible bad", rather than looking at the numbers rationally. If you look at the numbers, nuclear energy is incredibly, almost comically safer than any other form of power, including rooftop solar. Yet the public perception is exactly the opposite. The evacuation of the entire prefecture was almost certainly an overreaction, due to exactly the incredible over-weighing of the dangers of radiation. Yes, radiation is dangerous, but not that dangerous, and the main negative health effects (and deaths) were from the evacuation! Look at the WHO reports on Chernobyl. They published a report every ten years after the accident, and in each report they dramatically lowered their estimates of deaths due to radiation effects, and in each report the negative health effects of the evacuation became more clear. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". -- FDR. With nuclear power, the fear of radiation is currently a much greater threat than the actual radiation itself.

davrosthedalek 9y ago

Assuming that path is actually viable, which is debatable, that path might have other risks. It's not clear a priori where the total risk is lower. IIRC, wind power has, for example, a rather high accident rate for workers. Impact on birds was also something discussed. Massive solar power plants in Africa, for example, have an associated political risk.

mpweiher 9y ago

Little known fact: fission is currently our safest and cleanest energy source. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all...

newnewpdro 9y ago
Tell that to the residents of Japan.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  Precisely. Deaths from the Tsunami: 15895 Deaths from radiation: 0 Note that the deaths include those from technology that failed due to the Tsunami. And note that by "little known fact", I mean "fact that is so little known that people 'know' the opposite of what is actually true"
  - newnewpdro 9y ago
    You're willfully choosing to focus on provable deaths from acute radiation poisoning as some kind of metric of general safety. Anything requiring the immediate long-term evacuation of an entire prefecture in a failure mode is obviously unsafe. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
    - mpweiher 9y ago
      I never mentioned acute radiation poisoning. You are willfully ignoring the fact that all forms of energy pose hazards, and that the hazards posed by other forms of energy are vastly higher, usually several orders of magnitude. And you are reacting emotionally, "oh my god, nuclear horrible bad", rather than looking at the numbers rationally. If you look at the numbers, nuclear energy is incredibly, almost comically safer than any other form of power, including rooftop solar. Yet the public perception is exactly the opposite. The evacuation of the entire prefecture was almost certainly an overreaction, due to exactly the incredible over-weighing of the dangers of radiation. Yes, radiation is dangerous, but not that dangerous, and the main negative health effects (and deaths) were from the evacuation! Look at the WHO reports on Chernobyl. They published a report every ten years after the accident, and in each report they dramatically lowered their estimates of deaths due to radiation effects, and in each report the negative health effects of the evacuation became more clear. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". -- FDR. With nuclear power, the fear of radiation is currently a much greater threat than the actual radiation itself.