4 ms·

I think it is important to remember that the number of nuclear-related deaths is unrivalled compared to the mortality from oil-related conflicts or mortality fr

I think it is important to remember that the number of nuclear-related deaths is unrivalled compared to the mortality from oil-related conflicts or mortality from coal pollution. Mortality per kilowatt for electrovoltaics is very high due to accidents during the installation of solar panels on roofs. Germany is certainly not a good model on this.

crispyambulance 8y ago
I expect that's true on a "per kilowatt-hour" basis. BUT, the potential for harm from nuclear accidents is vastly higher, and also lasting (though one can make a competitive case for fossil fuel impact on global warming). In any case, "the big one" hasn't happened yet. It may not ever happen, but if it does, ONE incident can cause incalculable harm. I think potential for harm needs to be assessed in addition to just death per kilowatt hour.
- garmaine 8y ago
  No, it can't. This isn't magical technology; it has limits. The harm that can come from a single accident is constrained. Chernobyl and Fukushima represses pretty much the worst case, beyond what is even possible with better, more modern designs. Yet even in these cases the impact to human life is minimal when compared with other technologies, as noted by others.
  - Ultramanoid 8y ago
    While I understand where you're coming from, consider that there were initially hundreds of thousands displaced; tens of thousands still to this day. PTSD, depression, and profoundly disrupted lives. Many lost everything, and many will never return home. From this one incident. Edit : I am specifically replying to the phrase "the impact to human life is minimal" when referring to Fukushima. I am not comparing harm of nuclear versus harm of fossil fuels, etc. Fukushima's consequences were, and still are now to a very large number of people, including displaced, farmers, fishermen, and even the effects on commerce and relations between Japan and neighbouring nations ( Taiwan's food ban, etc ), anything but minimal. How much cancer cases increased is not the relevant measure point here.
    - badloginagain 8y ago
      As opposed to the crippling health effects of fossil fuels? Fossil fuels are causing harm on a global scale orders of magnitude more than nuclear. And not just physical harm to humans, but ecological and economic harm as well. Nuclear is by far the lesser of the two evils, providing baseload level amounts of carbon neutral energy with nearly a century lifespan, highly regulated and being far, far safer than any competing energy source.
      - michaelt 8y ago
        I'm largely supportive of nuclear power, except for one problem: All new plants seem to require large public subsidies, both direct and indirect. To get Hinkley Point C built, UK taxpayers have to guarantee an electricity price well above market rate, and the taxpayer has to underwrite all the loans, and the taxpayer will be on the hook for any accident cleanup costs above the reactor's $1bn insurance, and the taxpayer will be storing the waste, and guess who'll be paying for the decommissioning? That's right, in all probability it'll be the taxpayer. In nuclear is the future, we're in for a very expensive future.
        SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        Are you under the impression that fossil fuels aren't similarly subsidised?
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      > While I understand where you're coming from, consider that there were initially hundreds of thousands displaced; tens of thousands still to this day. PTSD, depression, and profoundly disrupted lives. Many lost everything, and many will never return home. From this one incident. This was in part (or, from what I read some time ago, mostly) caused by irrational fear and overrreaction to the incident, causing an evacuation much larger than necessary.
      - Ultramanoid 8y ago
        Well, there was definitely a bigger overreaction from foreigners living here, in fact. Thus the term fly-jin, thrown around quite a bit in those days. Pervasive PTSD and depression amongst the many thousands still displaced today ( specially the elderly ) is very real. There was an excellent article somewhere from a couple of years ago that I can't quite find right now.
  - crispyambulance 8y ago
    > Chernobyl and Fukushima represses pretty much the worst case... No, they do not. Each of these could have been much worse. And yet, even now people are still trying to piece together the scope of the damage that was done. These accidents were already incalculable in the harm they've done.
    - garmaine 8y ago
      Both are examples of accidents which are physically impossible to happen on modern passively cooled designs.

crispyambulance 8y ago

I expect that's true on a "per kilowatt-hour" basis. BUT, the potential for harm from nuclear accidents is vastly higher, and also lasting (though one can make a competitive case for fossil fuel impact on global warming). In any case, "the big one" hasn't happened yet. It may not ever happen, but if it does, ONE incident can cause incalculable harm. I think potential for harm needs to be assessed in addition to just death per kilowatt hour.

garmaine 8y ago
No, it can't. This isn't magical technology; it has limits. The harm that can come from a single accident is constrained. Chernobyl and Fukushima represses pretty much the worst case, beyond what is even possible with better, more modern designs. Yet even in these cases the impact to human life is minimal when compared with other technologies, as noted by others.
- Ultramanoid 8y ago
  While I understand where you're coming from, consider that there were initially hundreds of thousands displaced; tens of thousands still to this day. PTSD, depression, and profoundly disrupted lives. Many lost everything, and many will never return home. From this one incident. Edit : I am specifically replying to the phrase "the impact to human life is minimal" when referring to Fukushima. I am not comparing harm of nuclear versus harm of fossil fuels, etc. Fukushima's consequences were, and still are now to a very large number of people, including displaced, farmers, fishermen, and even the effects on commerce and relations between Japan and neighbouring nations ( Taiwan's food ban, etc ), anything but minimal. How much cancer cases increased is not the relevant measure point here.
  - badloginagain 8y ago
    As opposed to the crippling health effects of fossil fuels? Fossil fuels are causing harm on a global scale orders of magnitude more than nuclear. And not just physical harm to humans, but ecological and economic harm as well. Nuclear is by far the lesser of the two evils, providing baseload level amounts of carbon neutral energy with nearly a century lifespan, highly regulated and being far, far safer than any competing energy source.
    - michaelt 8y ago
      I'm largely supportive of nuclear power, except for one problem: All new plants seem to require large public subsidies, both direct and indirect. To get Hinkley Point C built, UK taxpayers have to guarantee an electricity price well above market rate, and the taxpayer has to underwrite all the loans, and the taxpayer will be on the hook for any accident cleanup costs above the reactor's $1bn insurance, and the taxpayer will be storing the waste, and guess who'll be paying for the decommissioning? That's right, in all probability it'll be the taxpayer. In nuclear is the future, we're in for a very expensive future.
      - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        Are you under the impression that fossil fuels aren't similarly subsidised?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > While I understand where you're coming from, consider that there were initially hundreds of thousands displaced; tens of thousands still to this day. PTSD, depression, and profoundly disrupted lives. Many lost everything, and many will never return home. From this one incident. This was in part (or, from what I read some time ago, mostly) caused by irrational fear and overrreaction to the incident, causing an evacuation much larger than necessary.
    - Ultramanoid 8y ago
      Well, there was definitely a bigger overreaction from foreigners living here, in fact. Thus the term fly-jin, thrown around quite a bit in those days. Pervasive PTSD and depression amongst the many thousands still displaced today ( specially the elderly ) is very real. There was an excellent article somewhere from a couple of years ago that I can't quite find right now.
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  > Chernobyl and Fukushima represses pretty much the worst case... No, they do not. Each of these could have been much worse. And yet, even now people are still trying to piece together the scope of the damage that was done. These accidents were already incalculable in the harm they've done.
  - garmaine 8y ago
    Both are examples of accidents which are physically impossible to happen on modern passively cooled designs.