6 ms·

>and irrational fear of "radiation" Radiation is very harmful, and very real. You don't get nuclear power without it. Nothing irrational about the fear of radi

>and irrational fear of "radiation" Radiation is very harmful, and very real. You don't get nuclear power without it. Nothing irrational about the fear of radiation.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
You don't get X-rays without radiation, either. For that matter, you don't get sunshine without radiation. The problem with fear of radiation is that all radiation gets dumped under that label, without any nuance as to the amount or kind. A properly-operating nuclear plant will emit radiation, but in amounts that should be less than the background levels. A failing nuclear plant can emit catastrophic amounts. The two really need to be in two different categories in peoples' minds, because they are not similar at all.
- jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
  >You don't get X-rays without radiation Yeah which is why you don't get X-rays as part of a routine physical exam. They only use them when necessary, because they know that repeated exposure to radiation is bad.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Well, you still get them as part of a routine dental exam. You never did get them as part of a routine non-dental medical exam that I can recall. (And if I understand correctly, the dosage on a dental X-ray is much lower than it used to be, because the machines have improved a great deal.)
    - mjevans 8y ago
      I believe most don't actually use film anymore, they use some other capture device that operates electronically.
    - jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
      >Well, you still get them as part of a routine dental exam. Yeah and they put a lead vest on you, and leave the fucking room. I actually have my dentist take X-rays less frequently than the "recommended" time frames (once a year is "recommended" I think) because of this.
delecti 8y ago
More radioactive material is emitted/released from coal plants than from nuclear plants, even when adjusted for the difference in power production between those two types of plants. It's not irrational to be wary about radiation, it is irrational to respond to that wariness by going all NIMBY on new nuclear plants.
- ahelwer 8y ago
  I'm pro nuclear power, but this is the difference between drinking a glass of water and drowning with your head in a bucket. It's weird to apply averages to situations where nuclear disasters release massive amounts of radiation all at once.
  - delecti 8y ago
    That's true, but what I said factors in all of those historic nuclear disasters. Even with all of those, nuclear power still averages out at releasing less radiation per unit of power generated than coal.
    - ahelwer 8y ago
      Yeah, and perhaps radiation per unit of power isn't a good metric. Suddenly rendering huge areas uninhabitable is qualitatively different than slightly increasing cancer risk over a long period of time. Anything that conflates the first with the second isn't a very good analysis. It's like how more oil seeps out of the floor of the Atlantic each year than was released during the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Doesn't make it not a disaster.
      - delecti 8y ago
        It might not be a good metric, but it's still overly generous to coal, because we're already rushing headlong towards huge areas of coastline being uninhabitable because they'll be underwater.
      - thatcat 8y ago
smsm42 8y ago
Sharks are also real. Yet for an average person, living in fear of sharks is completely irrational, especially if that person never goes where sharks could actually harm them. The fear is rational when the probability of harm is substantial, with most nuclear developments it is not, and less than the alternatives.
moosey 8y ago
It isn't irrational to fear radiation, but what is irrational is the level of fear, and also the fear in context with other dangers that we face that nuclear helps to solve. I don't think that I'm out of line in suggesting that Global Climate Change is a much larger threat than even several Chernobyl incidents. The constant coverage, even to this day, about the Chernobyl incident has caused an availability heuristic in the collective psyche of man, and exacerbates the largest issues that we actually face.
- ekun 8y ago
  The fear is a real and large issue that leads to a lack of reasonable discourse when evaluating pros and cons of nuclear against other sources in terms of funding advanced technologies and building current designs. But the fear is not necessarily what drives a cumbersome regulatory infrastructure that hampers new construction and the poor management by Westinghouse of the recent projects that led to massive cost overruns.
cm2187 8y ago
I am not an expert on nuclear energy but my understanding is that some designs (like the Molten Salt reactor) are considerably safer. You still have the risk of local contamination but no one should really care if a tiny area on earth is contaminated as a worst case. But they shouldn't expose a whole region to radiations. My understanding is that development costs are significant as changing the design requires a lot of engineering and testing. But perhaps it is time for an ambitious programme which scale would justify the investment given the age of the current plants in most major countries.

>and irrational fear of "radiation" Radiation is very harmful, and very real. You don't get nuclear power without it. Nothing irrational about the fear of radiation.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

You don't get X-rays without radiation, either. For that matter, you don't get sunshine without radiation. The problem with fear of radiation is that all radiation gets dumped under that label, without any nuance as to the amount or kind. A properly-operating nuclear plant will emit radiation, but in amounts that should be less than the background levels. A failing nuclear plant can emit catastrophic amounts. The two really need to be in two different categories in peoples' minds, because they are not similar at all.

jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
>You don't get X-rays without radiation Yeah which is why you don't get X-rays as part of a routine physical exam. They only use them when necessary, because they know that repeated exposure to radiation is bad.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Well, you still get them as part of a routine dental exam. You never did get them as part of a routine non-dental medical exam that I can recall. (And if I understand correctly, the dosage on a dental X-ray is much lower than it used to be, because the machines have improved a great deal.)
  - mjevans 8y ago
    I believe most don't actually use film anymore, they use some other capture device that operates electronically.
  - jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
    >Well, you still get them as part of a routine dental exam. Yeah and they put a lead vest on you, and leave the fucking room. I actually have my dentist take X-rays less frequently than the "recommended" time frames (once a year is "recommended" I think) because of this.

delecti 8y ago

More radioactive material is emitted/released from coal plants than from nuclear plants, even when adjusted for the difference in power production between those two types of plants. It's not irrational to be wary about radiation, it is irrational to respond to that wariness by going all NIMBY on new nuclear plants.

ahelwer 8y ago
I'm pro nuclear power, but this is the difference between drinking a glass of water and drowning with your head in a bucket. It's weird to apply averages to situations where nuclear disasters release massive amounts of radiation all at once.
- delecti 8y ago
  That's true, but what I said factors in all of those historic nuclear disasters. Even with all of those, nuclear power still averages out at releasing less radiation per unit of power generated than coal.
  - ahelwer 8y ago
    Yeah, and perhaps radiation per unit of power isn't a good metric. Suddenly rendering huge areas uninhabitable is qualitatively different than slightly increasing cancer risk over a long period of time. Anything that conflates the first with the second isn't a very good analysis. It's like how more oil seeps out of the floor of the Atlantic each year than was released during the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Doesn't make it not a disaster.
    - delecti 8y ago
      It might not be a good metric, but it's still overly generous to coal, because we're already rushing headlong towards huge areas of coastline being uninhabitable because they'll be underwater.
    - thatcat 8y ago

smsm42 8y ago

Sharks are also real. Yet for an average person, living in fear of sharks is completely irrational, especially if that person never goes where sharks could actually harm them. The fear is rational when the probability of harm is substantial, with most nuclear developments it is not, and less than the alternatives.

moosey 8y ago

It isn't irrational to fear radiation, but what is irrational is the level of fear, and also the fear in context with other dangers that we face that nuclear helps to solve. I don't think that I'm out of line in suggesting that Global Climate Change is a much larger threat than even several Chernobyl incidents. The constant coverage, even to this day, about the Chernobyl incident has caused an availability heuristic in the collective psyche of man, and exacerbates the largest issues that we actually face.

ekun 8y ago
The fear is a real and large issue that leads to a lack of reasonable discourse when evaluating pros and cons of nuclear against other sources in terms of funding advanced technologies and building current designs. But the fear is not necessarily what drives a cumbersome regulatory infrastructure that hampers new construction and the poor management by Westinghouse of the recent projects that led to massive cost overruns.

cm2187 8y ago

I am not an expert on nuclear energy but my understanding is that some designs (like the Molten Salt reactor) are considerably safer. You still have the risk of local contamination but no one should really care if a tiny area on earth is contaminated as a worst case. But they shouldn't expose a whole region to radiations. My understanding is that development costs are significant as changing the design requires a lot of engineering and testing. But perhaps it is time for an ambitious programme which scale would justify the investment given the age of the current plants in most major countries.