5 ms·

Come on, these are two separate discussions. Nuclear power can be used without making weapons.

bayesian_horse 8y ago
Historically, no. Nuclear power has always been tied to nuclear weapons in terms of infrastructure and technology. Only lately have there been attempts at nuclear power without the capacity for weapons development. Except for dirty bombs, of course, which are possible with virtually any radioactive material. And fear of "nuclear" technology isn't totally about rational arguments. It's not baseless either, because so many "impossible" accidents happened and its so hard to dispose of nuclear waste safely. The deployment of small nuclear grenades, intended to detonate near or in our cities for such "minor" targets as tanks hasn't exactly helped that fear.
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  Skepticism about expert classification of accidents as "impossible" is a completely rational argument given the history. Again, I'm not trying to have either debate. I'm just arguing against conflating them, at least within each single country. Once we're policing other countries about keeping off bombs, then, sure, forbidding their power plants might make sense.
  - bayesian_horse 8y ago
    Rationally it makes sense to separate the idea of nuclear contamination from casual use of small nuclear weapons from nuclear contamination from nuclear power accidents or waste disposal problems. Emotionally it doesn't make sense at all.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Nuclear power has always been tied to nuclear weapons in terms of infrastructure and technology. This is a reason to be wary of nuclear power in e.g. Iran. If you're worried that nuclear power in the United States or Europe will allow western countries to develop nuclear weapons, you're too late. It should also be noted that (edit: some of) the first nuclear weapons were developed using uranium, which is naturally occurring and can be enriched using centrifuges or other technology without any nuclear reactor at all. > And fear of "nuclear" technology isn't totally about rational arguments. It's not baseless either, because so many "impossible" accidents happened and its so hard to dispose of nuclear waste safely. This is FUD. Nothing is ever "impossible" but we deal with things more dangerous than nuclear waste on a regular basis, with less care taken and more actual accidents. Meanwhile you have a nuclear plant with multiple safety measures, then something happens which overcomes half of them but not the other half and the story is how unsafe this is rather than how the multiple overlapping safety layers worked as intended. The only majors disasters have been outside the United States in plants with lower safety requirements. The Chernobyl plant was designed unsafely and operated unsafely and even then the death toll was on the same order of magnitude as the collapse of a skyscraper or the sinking of a large ship, but nobody calls for an end to skyscrapers or ships, much less dams (which are much more dangerous), and that's before we even mention automobiles. The waste problem is also entirely political. The major long half life component is plutonium, which can be reprocessed and used as reactor fuel in newer reactors, which actually permanently destroys it -- the only way to make sure it's never used for weapons. The shorter half life components have to be stored to cool off, but we're talking dozens of years rather than thousands there. Many of them also have commercial value in medical imaging and things like that.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    A bit of a nitpick: the first and third bombs ever detonated were plutonium weapons. Uranium bombs were developed in parallel, mostly as a backup plan in case the much more complicated but otherwise superior plutonium bomb ended up not being workable.
  - bayesian_horse 8y ago
    In reality it doesn't matter what else is dangerous in this world, when you have the possibility of a nuclear reactor blowing up or making portions of the country uninhabitable. For virtually no benefit. Just don't do it. Of course, all the experts keep saying nothing bad is going to happen with "our" technology in "our" country with "our" government regulating it. But in reality stuff did happen again and again, and with the potential damage even very low probabilities become scary. I don't get why being a "political problem" negates the nuclear waste argument. For one thing, suitable sites are a lot less common than previously thought, and safety of sites used earlier has been overestimated rather badly. For another, the "political" problem of getting people to accept a nuclear waste dump in their vicinity is extremely real and not going to go away. Not from any attempt of rational persuasion anyway. Again, it's not so much about rationality as about fear. But it's also about the fact that engineers tend to underestimate the risk in relying on Human operators, designers, regulators and the stability of a government. Nuclear power plants have a lifetime measured in decades. The weather will change, the demand will change, the technology will change. All good reasons not to commit to decades long problems (centuries, in the case of Tschernobyl and maybe even Fukushima, and decommissioning old power plants looks to be a lot more expensive than everyone thought).
    - 08-15 8y ago
      If the area around Fukushima is uninhabitable, then so is Denver. This irrational fear of trivial amounts of ionizing radiation is what prevents us from having abundant energy without emissions of greenhouse gasses. (But I guess that's virtually no benefit.) > the nuclear waste argument Can you see what you're doing here? You don't actually argue, you just pretend there is an argument and it's conclusive. If I tried to argue against that, I'd uselessly spend energy making points you don't care about, and you would claim victory. Oh, that's not what you're doing? The what is the nuclkear waste argument? > it's not so much about rationality as about fear You need it to be about fear, because you don't have a rational argument.
- 08-15 8y ago
  > Nuclear power has always been tied to nuclear weapons in terms of infrastructure and technology You mean like the CANDU reactors?
dboreham 8y ago
Nuclear power plants were literally the factories for weapons.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Nuclear reactors were. Nuclear power plants didn’t show up until a decade later.
  - dboreham 8y ago
    Not sure why that's relevant. It takes O(years) to plan and build one. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-marks-60th-anniversary-of-Calder-Hall http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-marks-60th-ann...
    - mikeash 8y ago
      It’s relevant because producing bomb material and producing power are somewhat orthogonal, as evidenced by the fact that bombs were being made for about a decade before any power was produced.
- 08-15 8y ago
  Citation needed. (Spoiler alert: they weren't.)

Historically, no. Nuclear power has always been tied to nuclear weapons in terms of infrastructure and technology. Only lately have there been attempts at nuclear power without the capacity for weapons development. Except for dirty bombs, of course, which are possible with virtually any radioactive material. And fear of "nuclear" technology isn't totally about rational arguments. It's not baseless either, because so many "impossible" accidents happened and its so hard to dispose of nuclear waste safely. The deployment of small nuclear grenades, intended to detonate near or in our cities for such "minor" targets as tanks hasn't exactly helped that fear.

emiliobumachar 8y ago
Skepticism about expert classification of accidents as "impossible" is a completely rational argument given the history. Again, I'm not trying to have either debate. I'm just arguing against conflating them, at least within each single country. Once we're policing other countries about keeping off bombs, then, sure, forbidding their power plants might make sense.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  Rationally it makes sense to separate the idea of nuclear contamination from casual use of small nuclear weapons from nuclear contamination from nuclear power accidents or waste disposal problems. Emotionally it doesn't make sense at all.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Nuclear power has always been tied to nuclear weapons in terms of infrastructure and technology. This is a reason to be wary of nuclear power in e.g. Iran. If you're worried that nuclear power in the United States or Europe will allow western countries to develop nuclear weapons, you're too late. It should also be noted that (edit: some of) the first nuclear weapons were developed using uranium, which is naturally occurring and can be enriched using centrifuges or other technology without any nuclear reactor at all. > And fear of "nuclear" technology isn't totally about rational arguments. It's not baseless either, because so many "impossible" accidents happened and its so hard to dispose of nuclear waste safely. This is FUD. Nothing is ever "impossible" but we deal with things more dangerous than nuclear waste on a regular basis, with less care taken and more actual accidents. Meanwhile you have a nuclear plant with multiple safety measures, then something happens which overcomes half of them but not the other half and the story is how unsafe this is rather than how the multiple overlapping safety layers worked as intended. The only majors disasters have been outside the United States in plants with lower safety requirements. The Chernobyl plant was designed unsafely and operated unsafely and even then the death toll was on the same order of magnitude as the collapse of a skyscraper or the sinking of a large ship, but nobody calls for an end to skyscrapers or ships, much less dams (which are much more dangerous), and that's before we even mention automobiles. The waste problem is also entirely political. The major long half life component is plutonium, which can be reprocessed and used as reactor fuel in newer reactors, which actually permanently destroys it -- the only way to make sure it's never used for weapons. The shorter half life components have to be stored to cool off, but we're talking dozens of years rather than thousands there. Many of them also have commercial value in medical imaging and things like that.
- mikeash 8y ago
  A bit of a nitpick: the first and third bombs ever detonated were plutonium weapons. Uranium bombs were developed in parallel, mostly as a backup plan in case the much more complicated but otherwise superior plutonium bomb ended up not being workable.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  In reality it doesn't matter what else is dangerous in this world, when you have the possibility of a nuclear reactor blowing up or making portions of the country uninhabitable. For virtually no benefit. Just don't do it. Of course, all the experts keep saying nothing bad is going to happen with "our" technology in "our" country with "our" government regulating it. But in reality stuff did happen again and again, and with the potential damage even very low probabilities become scary. I don't get why being a "political problem" negates the nuclear waste argument. For one thing, suitable sites are a lot less common than previously thought, and safety of sites used earlier has been overestimated rather badly. For another, the "political" problem of getting people to accept a nuclear waste dump in their vicinity is extremely real and not going to go away. Not from any attempt of rational persuasion anyway. Again, it's not so much about rationality as about fear. But it's also about the fact that engineers tend to underestimate the risk in relying on Human operators, designers, regulators and the stability of a government. Nuclear power plants have a lifetime measured in decades. The weather will change, the demand will change, the technology will change. All good reasons not to commit to decades long problems (centuries, in the case of Tschernobyl and maybe even Fukushima, and decommissioning old power plants looks to be a lot more expensive than everyone thought).
  - 08-15 8y ago
    If the area around Fukushima is uninhabitable, then so is Denver. This irrational fear of trivial amounts of ionizing radiation is what prevents us from having abundant energy without emissions of greenhouse gasses. (But I guess that's virtually no benefit.) > the nuclear waste argument Can you see what you're doing here? You don't actually argue, you just pretend there is an argument and it's conclusive. If I tried to argue against that, I'd uselessly spend energy making points you don't care about, and you would claim victory. Oh, that's not what you're doing? The what is the nuclkear waste argument? > it's not so much about rationality as about fear You need it to be about fear, because you don't have a rational argument.
08-15 8y ago
> Nuclear power has always been tied to nuclear weapons in terms of infrastructure and technology You mean like the CANDU reactors?

dboreham 8y ago

Nuclear power plants were literally the factories for weapons.

mikeash 8y ago
Nuclear reactors were. Nuclear power plants didn’t show up until a decade later.
- dboreham 8y ago
  Not sure why that's relevant. It takes O(years) to plan and build one. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-marks-60th-anniversary-of-Calder-Hall http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-marks-60th-ann...
  - mikeash 8y ago
    It’s relevant because producing bomb material and producing power are somewhat orthogonal, as evidenced by the fact that bombs were being made for about a decade before any power was produced.
08-15 8y ago
Citation needed. (Spoiler alert: they weren't.)