3 ms·

It's too late. If we really believe the predictions [0] then we need to go all-in on fission like 10 years ago. Yes, there are risks to nuclear power. I'll take

It's too late. If we really believe the predictions [0] then we need to go all-in on fission like 10 years ago. Yes, there are risks to nuclear power. I'll take risks of localized disaster over the certainty of a global catastrophe. [0] https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433 https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433

natmaka 8y ago
Most accept a potential "localized disaster"... as long as they aren't at risk themselves ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY ). Always letting the poorest directly assume such risk may be a good recipe for a global social catastrophe.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  NIMBY doesn't automatically imply poorest. Regardless, I volunteer for the danger zone. The 99% worst case is merely evacuation, and expensive power plants pay for lots of nice thing with their taxes. Also insurance is a perfectly viable way to spread out risk so that no group of people is disadvantaged.
  - natmaka 8y ago
    The fact that you are not in NIMBY is possible, your arguments, albeit debatable (no insurance company offers any policy related to large-scale nuke risk), are acceptable, but nonetheless you sit in a tiny minority thinking this way. AFAIK everywhere the majority is stuck in NIMBY mode.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      If you were going to make a thousand power plants, I bet you could easily create such an insurance. But people are always going to be unrealistic about risk. So I dunno, ask people if they accept a tiny chance of localized disaster, and then ignore everything they say about their own location.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  The poorest in the world are most exposed to the risks of climate change. Building out nuclear power in developed countries would mean the globally wealthy assuming a fairer measure of the risks associated with their consumption.

3 ms·

It's too late. If we really believe the predictions [0] then we need to go all-in on fission like 10 years ago. Yes, there are risks to nuclear power. I'll take

by ForHackernews 8y ago

natmaka 8y ago
Most accept a potential "localized disaster"... as long as they aren't at risk themselves ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY ). Always letting the poorest directly assume such risk may be a good recipe for a global social catastrophe.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  NIMBY doesn't automatically imply poorest. Regardless, I volunteer for the danger zone. The 99% worst case is merely evacuation, and expensive power plants pay for lots of nice thing with their taxes. Also insurance is a perfectly viable way to spread out risk so that no group of people is disadvantaged.
  - natmaka 8y ago
    The fact that you are not in NIMBY is possible, your arguments, albeit debatable (no insurance company offers any policy related to large-scale nuke risk), are acceptable, but nonetheless you sit in a tiny minority thinking this way. AFAIK everywhere the majority is stuck in NIMBY mode.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      If you were going to make a thousand power plants, I bet you could easily create such an insurance. But people are always going to be unrealistic about risk. So I dunno, ask people if they accept a tiny chance of localized disaster, and then ignore everything they say about their own location.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  The poorest in the world are most exposed to the risks of climate change. Building out nuclear power in developed countries would mean the globally wealthy assuming a fairer measure of the risks associated with their consumption.