4 ms·

" if it suffers structural failure the death toll makes nuclear accidents look like almost nothing" You compare a hypothetical dam disaster, with nuclears reco

" if it suffers structural failure the death toll makes nuclear accidents look like almost nothing" You compare a hypothetical dam disaster, with nuclears record so far - its clearly worth reconsidering that comparison. Nuclear plants also consume large amounts of water, and other resources so could not be considered carbon neutral by your own measure. Reservoirs are large lakes, creating them entails ecological disruption but not consumption or degradation in the long term.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Not sure where this comparison is going? One dam disaster (Banqiao Dam) caused more death and destruction that almost all other disasters combined. In fact failure of nuclear plants has had remarkably few verifiable deaths. And compared to the energy one nuclear plant produces, dams seem to have vastly worse death-per-benefit statistics. Damming a river can cause ecosystem collapse downstream. That's degradation, as I understand the word. And its definitely long-term.
- strainer 8y ago
  I hoped merely pointing out that discrepancy would suffice - how ben_ws comment compared the history of nuclear accidents to the potential dangers of dams. Potential scenarios are very important in determining probabilistic risk. Simply showing "it hasn't happened yet" is not a valid way to assess risk. This is the reason it costs more to build and keep nuclear plants safe, than it does dams.
- makomk 8y ago
  Nuclear proponents always point to the Banqiao Dam disaster, and it's always a misleading argument because that dam was built to control downstream flooding as well as provide power and its failure was probably attributable to how the flood control aspect was mismanaged - by holding back too much water for too long out of fear of downstream flooding, they ended up overfilling the reservoir. If China hadn't bothered with hydroelectric power, the dam would still have to have been built and all those people would still have died when it failed, you just wouldn't be able to use their deaths to make nuclear power look better. (Also, nuclear power didn't exist back when that dam was put into operation, and given the quality of engineering that went into it that's probably a good thing.)
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Rationalizations can be made for nuclear as well. But it doesn't touch the evidence that dam failure has and may continue to be the far greater risk.
ben_w 8y ago
> You compare a hypothetical dam disaster No, I’m not.
- strainer 8y ago
  "the nature of the things means that if it suffers structural failure" What actual dam did you mean to refer to there?
  - ben_w 8y ago
    The one I linked to in the original post: """Its failure in 1975 caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history at an estimated 171,000 deaths and 11 million displaced.""" Though I could also be talking about the 2,209 who died in the 1889 South Fork Dam incident. (“””Blamed locally on poor maintenance by owners; court deemed it an "Act of God". Followed exceptionally heavy rainfall.”””) Or the 423 in Malpasset dam, France, as recently as 1959. Or the 238 in Canyon Lake Dam, 1972. Or the 1,800 to 25,000 (estimates vary) in the 1979 Machchhu dam failure.
    - strainer 8y ago
      But the one referenced as an example in your original post DID fail - and you wrote "IF it fails". You described a potential failure "in the nature of the things". It is natural to consider the nature of things - apply equal consideration to nuclear power and your comparison will be more valid.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        I literally do not know how to parse your sentence in the way that interacts sensibly with what I wrote.
        strainer 8y ago
        Interact candidly - don't avoid your error while trying to parse. You wrote "IF it suffers failure..." so the "it" was not the example of failure you gave, "it" was hypothetical . This is why I asked you what "it" was - not so that you could elaborate on what you could have been talking about, I asked to give you a fair chance to realise "it" was yours to define - a hypothetical dam, one defined only by "the nature of things" and a "death toll makes nuclear accidents look like almost nothing"

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Not sure where this comparison is going? One dam disaster (Banqiao Dam) caused more death and destruction that almost all other disasters combined. In fact failure of nuclear plants has had remarkably few verifiable deaths. And compared to the energy one nuclear plant produces, dams seem to have vastly worse death-per-benefit statistics. Damming a river can cause ecosystem collapse downstream. That's degradation, as I understand the word. And its definitely long-term.

strainer 8y ago
I hoped merely pointing out that discrepancy would suffice - how ben_ws comment compared the history of nuclear accidents to the potential dangers of dams. Potential scenarios are very important in determining probabilistic risk. Simply showing "it hasn't happened yet" is not a valid way to assess risk. This is the reason it costs more to build and keep nuclear plants safe, than it does dams.
makomk 8y ago
Nuclear proponents always point to the Banqiao Dam disaster, and it's always a misleading argument because that dam was built to control downstream flooding as well as provide power and its failure was probably attributable to how the flood control aspect was mismanaged - by holding back too much water for too long out of fear of downstream flooding, they ended up overfilling the reservoir. If China hadn't bothered with hydroelectric power, the dam would still have to have been built and all those people would still have died when it failed, you just wouldn't be able to use their deaths to make nuclear power look better. (Also, nuclear power didn't exist back when that dam was put into operation, and given the quality of engineering that went into it that's probably a good thing.)
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Rationalizations can be made for nuclear as well. But it doesn't touch the evidence that dam failure has and may continue to be the far greater risk.

ben_w 8y ago

> You compare a hypothetical dam disaster No, I’m not.

strainer 8y ago
"the nature of the things means that if it suffers structural failure" What actual dam did you mean to refer to there?
- ben_w 8y ago
  The one I linked to in the original post: """Its failure in 1975 caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history at an estimated 171,000 deaths and 11 million displaced.""" Though I could also be talking about the 2,209 who died in the 1889 South Fork Dam incident. (“””Blamed locally on poor maintenance by owners; court deemed it an "Act of God". Followed exceptionally heavy rainfall.”””) Or the 423 in Malpasset dam, France, as recently as 1959. Or the 238 in Canyon Lake Dam, 1972. Or the 1,800 to 25,000 (estimates vary) in the 1979 Machchhu dam failure.
  - strainer 8y ago
    But the one referenced as an example in your original post DID fail - and you wrote "IF it fails". You described a potential failure "in the nature of the things". It is natural to consider the nature of things - apply equal consideration to nuclear power and your comparison will be more valid.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      I literally do not know how to parse your sentence in the way that interacts sensibly with what I wrote.
      - strainer 8y ago
        Interact candidly - don't avoid your error while trying to parse. You wrote "IF it suffers failure..." so the "it" was not the example of failure you gave, "it" was hypothetical . This is why I asked you what "it" was - not so that you could elaborate on what you could have been talking about, I asked to give you a fair chance to realise "it" was yours to define - a hypothetical dam, one defined only by "the nature of things" and a "death toll makes nuclear accidents look like almost nothing"