3 ms·
> On the nuclear topic, I'm annoyed that natural gas accidents that cause deaths get way lighter media treatment than nuclear accidents like TMI that cause no d
by Jach 8y ago
> On the nuclear topic, I'm annoyed that natural gas accidents that cause deaths get way lighter media treatment than nuclear accidents like TMI that cause no deaths.
Why this annoyance? I'd prefer the media for the most part shut up about energy accidents in general, considering how damaging their outcries have been for nuclear power. A few sober reports are fine. It's probably a minor miracle the natural gas industry hasn't suffered like the nuclear one.
- acidburnNSA 8y agoHeh, I guess you're right: I'd prefer both nuclear and natural gas to get sober reports. I think natural gas has a better name (it's natural! As if uranium is not), no ties to superweapons, and no The Simpsons. Regular fire is just easier to understand to most folks than radioisotopes.
- nicoburns 8y agoWith natural gas incidents, the entire surrounding area doesn't become unusable for hundreds of years...
- URSpider94 8y agoNo, but over the past 50 years, we’ve had two severe nuclear incidents resulting in any kind of long-term environmental damage (Fukuhima and Chernobyl), and Fukushima will be remediated within a decade. In the mean time, we’ve had Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon, Andover, San Carlos, CA, plus oil trains burning down entire towns, coal mine explosions, two Gulf Wars, and sea level rise due to global warming. Pick your poison.
- Pfhreak 8y agoI find this to be an interesting comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents The list of accidents is so large that the US has to create separate wikipedia pages for every 25 year span.
- blattimwind 8y ago> The list of accidents is so large that the US has to create separate wikipedia pages for every 25 year span. Actually it has a separate list page for each year since 2000. And the 25-year lists before ("List of pipeline accidents in the United States (1975–1999)" etc.) are huge lists.
- acidburnNSA 8y agoRight. And the evacuation now in most of fukushima is based on old and likely very conservative dose-health relations (linear, no threshold). There is a lot of talk these days of getting a better understanding of the real risk of low dose radiation. Some people evacuated Fukushima and went to places with higher natural background and ironically got more dose
- glenneroo 8y agoI think you are only considering the damage done on land, but you severely underestimate the damage done (being done) to the ocean, which is difficult to assess though all studies I have seen so far tend to agree that anything living there is having a rough time.
- mypalmike 8y ago> Fukushima will be remediated within a decade. Do you want to put some money Fukushima being fully decomissioned by 2028?
- adrianN 8y agoWe also have burning coal mines that slowly eat whole landscapes like in Centralia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoI wonder how much land area has been rendered unusable from pollution by oil, coal and gas compared to nuclear. I suspect even by this measure nuclear would prove far preferable. The difference is many tens of thousands of smaller sites affected by fossil fuel pollution and accidents as compared to a couple of large incidents.