4 ms·

Nuclear is the safest, greenest, most scalable, most reliable and plentiful energy form we have. More people die every year from Coal than have died from Nucle

Nuclear is the safest, greenest, most scalable, most reliable and plentiful energy form we have. More people die every year from Coal than have died from Nuclear in it's entire history. More people die every year of setting up solar and wind than of nuclear. I could go on. The fear of nuclear is absurd and 100% due to the success of a mostly anti humanist environmental movement and the completely un-scientific political debate that surrounds this (which also have found it's way into the climate debate) It's really quite sad.

village-idiot 8y ago
Installing solar cells probably kills more than nuclear does. Edit: because people fall off roofs.
fossuser 8y ago
Nuclear failures are different - they make an entire area uninhabitable for hundreds of years and they're very difficult to clean up without getting a lot of people killed.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Making a small area uninhabitable vs killing millions a year, i know where i take my chances. Chernobyl killed almost no one, fukushima killed almost no one. Mother nature kill more people in a day than have died from all nuclear disasters together. You really have the proportions wrong in such a fundamental way, unfortunately supported by media, politicians and environmentalist.
  - adetrest 8y ago
    Chernobyl killed a lot of people. Even today, more people than ever get thyroid cancer and disorders thanks to Chernobyl. While very few people were killed by the explosion itself, millions were affected and died from the event's consequences.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      No it didnt kill a lot and i would urge you to find that evidence. Furthermore the amount of people who died from chernobyl in all the time after is a fraction of the people who dies of natural phenomena from nature every year, add on top of that the other reasons people die and chernobyl is not even worth mentioning. Again you guys have your proportions completely wrong at a fundamental level.
      - lowry 8y ago
        IIRC, the number of direct deaths was around 100, including a helicopter crew that crashed on site a few days later.
    - jabl 8y ago
      The consensus view as reported by WHO estimates around 4000 in total will eventually die due to Chernobyl. Not millions.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  Coal mining makes large areas uninhabitable. Chernobyl and Fukishima made areas uninhabitable for humans, but they seem to be gardens for flora and fauna (because people aren't bothering them).
- roenxi 8y ago
  I have a favorite article for when people say that - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35761136 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35761136 - which notes that there are areas inside the Fukushima exclusion zone with an additional annual dose of 13 millisieverts vs city of Ramsar in Iran where they have an annual dose of 250 millisieverts. The citizens of Ramsar obviously have found the place to be inhabitable although I'm sure some safety expert is working to kick them out of their homes too.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  Just today on HackerNews: "An Epidemic Is Killing Thousands of Coal Miners" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18712022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18712022
  - fossuser 8y ago
    Coal isn't great either (worse in a lot of ways), but the type of risk is different. I just find it odd that Nuclear seems to create these almost religious followers like the parent comment I replied to that ignore the tradeoffs and special risks of Nuclear failures. Wind and solar seem a lot more preferable and are getting better with battery improvements leading to increased capacity with a lower cost.
    - WalterBright 8y ago
      > the type of risk is different Humans seem to be wildly irrational in their acceptance/rejection of different types of risks that has little to do with the odds of the risk.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      You should find any evidence of your own position before you start calling other people religious. The risk of nuclear is not even comparable to the risk of things you do everyday and take for granted are not worth worrying about. Find the evidence that show nuclear is even a fraction as dangerous as you claim. Dont take my worth for it, educate yourself. Then come back with the evidence and i will rally up behind you. Wind and solar are not even close to being able to deliver like nuclear and they deliver a fraction of the worlds need (1%). More people die from setting up solar and wind, way more animals die because of wind, both wind and solar pollute more. Its pretty obvious who is the religious person here.
  - kazinator 8y ago
    Underground coal fire that's been burning since 1962: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire The area above is not inhabitable.
CaptainZapp 8y ago
I'd wager that the ex inhabitents of the Fukushima region disagree. And this was Japan. You can't accuse them of being a bunch of Vodka swilling engineers that misjudged the signalling of a couple of dials because they were drunk. The problem is that the consequences of a nuclear catastrophy are horendous and in the hands of profit seeking, private companies with a potential tendency to cut corners it gets outright dangerous. The fear of nuclear is absurd and 100% due to the success of a mostly anti humanist environmental movement and the completely un-scientific political debate that surrounds this You don't know me. You have no idea who I am or how I form my opinions. You just essentially judge anbody a manipulated, non-thinking idiot who disagrees with your point of view. Now that's rally quite sad.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  i dont have to know you, i just have to look at the facts. You are welcome to present facts that supports your position but i wont hold my breath.
SuoDuanDao 8y ago
While the danger of installing solar cells is a good point, I suspect most working class neighborhoods would rather have these high-risk, well-paying jobs for a lot of young people than have a much smaller number of people running a nuclear plant at some remote location. Concentration of capital is also a risk. I would add that the problems of nuclear are mostly self-inflicted and due to an unwillingness to admit to its own shortcomings. To give you an example, a Nuclear physics professor told my class, with a straight face, that nuclear plants were designed so well that one could expect a catastrophic failure no more than once every thousand or so years. Since the actual frequency of catastrophic failures has been more like one in every twenty years or so, his model was clearly off by orders of magnitude - but he hadn't updated it! Nuclear has probably the largest expert problem of any industry I've encountered, it's full of smart people living in a completely different world than the 'un-scientific' public they look down their noses at. If Nuclear is to fulfill its potential the people in the field need to do some painful introspection and recognize that the uncertainties in their models are actually much larger than they'd like to believe. I'd recommend any book by Taleb if you think that's an avenue worth pursueing.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I have read his books.

village-idiot 8y ago

Installing solar cells probably kills more than nuclear does. Edit: because people fall off roofs.

fossuser 8y ago

Nuclear failures are different - they make an entire area uninhabitable for hundreds of years and they're very difficult to clean up without getting a lot of people killed.

ThomPete 8y ago
Making a small area uninhabitable vs killing millions a year, i know where i take my chances. Chernobyl killed almost no one, fukushima killed almost no one. Mother nature kill more people in a day than have died from all nuclear disasters together. You really have the proportions wrong in such a fundamental way, unfortunately supported by media, politicians and environmentalist.
- adetrest 8y ago
  Chernobyl killed a lot of people. Even today, more people than ever get thyroid cancer and disorders thanks to Chernobyl. While very few people were killed by the explosion itself, millions were affected and died from the event's consequences.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    No it didnt kill a lot and i would urge you to find that evidence. Furthermore the amount of people who died from chernobyl in all the time after is a fraction of the people who dies of natural phenomena from nature every year, add on top of that the other reasons people die and chernobyl is not even worth mentioning. Again you guys have your proportions completely wrong at a fundamental level.
    - lowry 8y ago
      IIRC, the number of direct deaths was around 100, including a helicopter crew that crashed on site a few days later.
  - jabl 8y ago
    The consensus view as reported by WHO estimates around 4000 in total will eventually die due to Chernobyl. Not millions.
WalterBright 8y ago
Coal mining makes large areas uninhabitable. Chernobyl and Fukishima made areas uninhabitable for humans, but they seem to be gardens for flora and fauna (because people aren't bothering them).
roenxi 8y ago
I have a favorite article for when people say that - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35761136 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35761136 - which notes that there are areas inside the Fukushima exclusion zone with an additional annual dose of 13 millisieverts vs city of Ramsar in Iran where they have an annual dose of 250 millisieverts. The citizens of Ramsar obviously have found the place to be inhabitable although I'm sure some safety expert is working to kick them out of their homes too.
WalterBright 8y ago
Just today on HackerNews: "An Epidemic Is Killing Thousands of Coal Miners" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18712022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18712022
- fossuser 8y ago
  Coal isn't great either (worse in a lot of ways), but the type of risk is different. I just find it odd that Nuclear seems to create these almost religious followers like the parent comment I replied to that ignore the tradeoffs and special risks of Nuclear failures. Wind and solar seem a lot more preferable and are getting better with battery improvements leading to increased capacity with a lower cost.
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    > the type of risk is different Humans seem to be wildly irrational in their acceptance/rejection of different types of risks that has little to do with the odds of the risk.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    You should find any evidence of your own position before you start calling other people religious. The risk of nuclear is not even comparable to the risk of things you do everyday and take for granted are not worth worrying about. Find the evidence that show nuclear is even a fraction as dangerous as you claim. Dont take my worth for it, educate yourself. Then come back with the evidence and i will rally up behind you. Wind and solar are not even close to being able to deliver like nuclear and they deliver a fraction of the worlds need (1%). More people die from setting up solar and wind, way more animals die because of wind, both wind and solar pollute more. Its pretty obvious who is the religious person here.
- kazinator 8y ago
  Underground coal fire that's been burning since 1962: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire The area above is not inhabitable.

CaptainZapp 8y ago

I'd wager that the ex inhabitents of the Fukushima region disagree. And this was Japan. You can't accuse them of being a bunch of Vodka swilling engineers that misjudged the signalling of a couple of dials because they were drunk. The problem is that the consequences of a nuclear catastrophy are horendous and in the hands of profit seeking, private companies with a potential tendency to cut corners it gets outright dangerous. The fear of nuclear is absurd and 100% due to the success of a mostly anti humanist environmental movement and the completely un-scientific political debate that surrounds this You don't know me. You have no idea who I am or how I form my opinions. You just essentially judge anbody a manipulated, non-thinking idiot who disagrees with your point of view. Now that's rally quite sad.

ThomPete 8y ago
i dont have to know you, i just have to look at the facts. You are welcome to present facts that supports your position but i wont hold my breath.

SuoDuanDao 8y ago

While the danger of installing solar cells is a good point, I suspect most working class neighborhoods would rather have these high-risk, well-paying jobs for a lot of young people than have a much smaller number of people running a nuclear plant at some remote location. Concentration of capital is also a risk. I would add that the problems of nuclear are mostly self-inflicted and due to an unwillingness to admit to its own shortcomings. To give you an example, a Nuclear physics professor told my class, with a straight face, that nuclear plants were designed so well that one could expect a catastrophic failure no more than once every thousand or so years. Since the actual frequency of catastrophic failures has been more like one in every twenty years or so, his model was clearly off by orders of magnitude - but he hadn't updated it! Nuclear has probably the largest expert problem of any industry I've encountered, it's full of smart people living in a completely different world than the 'un-scientific' public they look down their noses at. If Nuclear is to fulfill its potential the people in the field need to do some painful introspection and recognize that the uncertainties in their models are actually much larger than they'd like to believe. I'd recommend any book by Taleb if you think that's an avenue worth pursueing.

ThomPete 8y ago
I have read his books.