3 ms·

First of all, the threat we're up against is global warming and air pollution which is currently killing hundreds of thousands of people, right now, per year.

First of all, the threat we're up against is global warming and air pollution which is currently killing hundreds of thousands of people, right now, per year. Also, you're assuming a linear no-threshold radiation dose response, which is very hard to find support for at the low dose rates now present at Chernobyl. As someone else in this thread pointed out, that's like assuming hundreds of people would die per year from handshakes due to linear health response to Newton's laws. Indeed, it appears that human presence was more detrimental to life than radiation [1]. [1] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl...

7952 8y ago
The engineering cost of dealing with Fukushima and Chernobyl are aboslutely eye watering. I would agree that the human reaction is sometimes irrational, but that needs to be accepted. Human life is not a lab controlled experiment where people will always behave rationally.
- NeutronStar 8y ago
  No one is saying to build 70s era nuclear power plants. New nuclear design are way safer than those old designs.
- acidburnNSA 8y ago
  Ok, but would you agree that we should also expect to not overdo cleanup efforts by several orders of magnitude without reasonable evidence that low-dose radiation is dangerous after collecting multiple decades of data. I don't think infinite-duration irrationality in the face of data is necessary.
  - 7952 8y ago
    A focus of the engineering efforts at Chernobyl and Fukushima are to make sure that higher risk contamination is avoided. So the current radiation impact is not the issue. It is the potential impact that is addressed. I hope that one day Chernobyl and Fukushima can be repopulated, and agree that may be safe. I don't think that makes any difference to the actual cost of the event. Nor, would it be wise to presume that a subsequent event could be safely handled without an evacuation. But that is one for politicians to decide.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  The cost of the status quo where we mostly burn dead dinosaurs for electricity costs a lot more and is not getting any less costly. Given the choice of waiting for wind/solar to become more worthwhile as oil extraction slowly becomes more expensive and prices slowly rise (aka the status quo) or pulling the trigger on nuclear now it shouldn't even be a choice.
  - 7952 8y ago
    I am actually in favour of developing nuclear energy. And I think we should also invest in renewables. And one day I think that another nuclear station is going to fail and will need to be made safe. Those things are not inconsistent.

7952 8y ago

The engineering cost of dealing with Fukushima and Chernobyl are aboslutely eye watering. I would agree that the human reaction is sometimes irrational, but that needs to be accepted. Human life is not a lab controlled experiment where people will always behave rationally.

NeutronStar 8y ago
No one is saying to build 70s era nuclear power plants. New nuclear design are way safer than those old designs.
acidburnNSA 8y ago
Ok, but would you agree that we should also expect to not overdo cleanup efforts by several orders of magnitude without reasonable evidence that low-dose radiation is dangerous after collecting multiple decades of data. I don't think infinite-duration irrationality in the face of data is necessary.
- 7952 8y ago
  A focus of the engineering efforts at Chernobyl and Fukushima are to make sure that higher risk contamination is avoided. So the current radiation impact is not the issue. It is the potential impact that is addressed. I hope that one day Chernobyl and Fukushima can be repopulated, and agree that may be safe. I don't think that makes any difference to the actual cost of the event. Nor, would it be wise to presume that a subsequent event could be safely handled without an evacuation. But that is one for politicians to decide.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
The cost of the status quo where we mostly burn dead dinosaurs for electricity costs a lot more and is not getting any less costly. Given the choice of waiting for wind/solar to become more worthwhile as oil extraction slowly becomes more expensive and prices slowly rise (aka the status quo) or pulling the trigger on nuclear now it shouldn't even be a choice.
- 7952 8y ago
  I am actually in favour of developing nuclear energy. And I think we should also invest in renewables. And one day I think that another nuclear station is going to fail and will need to be made safe. Those things are not inconsistent.