3 ms·
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 count
by 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 agoIf 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.