3 ms·
Relatively few people die annually as a direct consequence of coal plant catastrophes. The pollution risks are extrapolated and gradual, just like the much less
by varjag 8y ago
Relatively few people die annually as a direct consequence of coal plant catastrophes. The pollution risks are extrapolated and gradual, just like the much less studied long term risks of non-lethal fallout exposure.
- arduanika 8y agoWe're not talking about direct consequences of catastrophes. We're talking about life cycles, and about an existential risk to our species. There are some deep, deep pockets interested in diverting attention, narrowing the timeline of analysis, and changing the problem scope. As open source enthusiasts we should recognize this for what it is: good old-fashioned FUD. (Edit for clarity: I'm not accusing you personally. I'm simply skeptical about where our received wisdom about the dangers of nuclear comes from.)
- varjag 8y agoDespite your disclaimer, it does sound personal: can't really be read in any other way. But talking about FUD, the article compares immediate deaths of nuclear accidents versus long term effects of coal pollution.
- vidarh 8y agoAnd relatively few people die annually as a direct consequence of nuclear catastrophes too. The directly attributable number of deaths from nuclear plant catastrophes is <100 worldwide over the history of nuclear power plants. The vast majority of projected reduced number of life-years from Chernobyl (a number that's keeps regularly being adjusted down) is down to increased risks of cancer that have turned out to be overblown, but will certainly end up having contributed the majority of deaths.
- varjag 8y agoWhat I think happens is techies love neat, advanced, elegant (even if on paper) solutions to complex problems. Nuclear certainly ticks all the right boxes, so there is a great appeal to it. Huge incentive to gloss over messy real world outcomes.