3 ms·

I'm pro nuclear, but it's hard to be. The communication around the nuclear industry has been anything but honest. Typical nuclear plant costs, when compared to

I'm pro nuclear, but it's hard to be. The communication around the nuclear industry has been anything but honest. Typical nuclear plant costs, when compared to wind power in France, do not include decommissing of the plant or the cost of cabling while it is for wind turbines. Also accidents side effects are downplayed so much it's insulting. According to the french medias, the tchernobyl nuclear cloud never crossed the french border. Yet we know now that thyroid cancer near said border spiked during a decade, and it's impossible to sell nuclear energy to one of my best friend whose life has be shatered it. So the first step to promote nuclear power would be to actually respect people.

kuzehanka 8y ago
> Also accidents side effects are downplayed so much it's insulting I think you might have fallen for media bias. While the nuclear industry doesn't have anything resembling a flawless safety record, it's still orders of magnitude safer than all mainstream power sources which see no scrutiny due to the dilution of their impact. Nuclear accidents are viewed as bad in the same way that airline crashes are viewed as bad, despite airlines being the safest mode of transport and safer than the car journey to the airport. They are extremely rare, and they impact >100 people when they happen so they're always newsworthy. Unlike the 4.6M people that die due to fossil fuel related air pollution worldwide at a steady state each year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents I'm not pro or anti nuclear. I'm just a random AU citizen following the gradient descent path towards a future that least fucks our children.
- sametmax 8y ago
  What bias ? Telling the population the border is safe knowing it's not and then they get cancer is quite factual. I'm not talking about potential risks, I'm talking about actual confirmed events and the way they have been handled. It's not speculation, it's history. The problem here are not the victims. It's not the risk or the stats. It's respect. E.g: I can read your comment calmly. My friends with his scar in the throat and his helicopter pilot career down the toilet ? He would insult you and you would lose any chance of convincing him and hence his social network about nuclear. So yeah, the pro nuclear community has a serious communication problem.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    I've seen the exact opposite in the general media - when Fukushima was occurring people were buying iodized salt in North America out of panic (I was working at a drug store at the time, I watched it happen). If anything, when people think of nuclear power they only think of the accidents.
    - wutbrodo 8y ago
      I had a cousin in CA worried about Fukushima defend her concern by saying that she had a Ukrainian friend whose family was affected by Chernobyl. Two guesses as to how effective it was to tell her that Chernobyl was freaking IN Ukraine and that CA is as far from Fukushima as New York is from Chernobyl. Most people make decisions based on a hazy blur of random exposure to flashy stories, not anything remotely resembling rational adult thought. I don't know what the solution is to nuclear's PR and political problems, but I know that it isn't anything that requires a third grader's level of critical thinking ability.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - mbell 8y ago
    > Telling the population the border is safe knowing it's not and then they get cancer is quite factual. It's not so clear cut. Thyroid cancer rates started increasing dramatically almost everywhere in the world in the mid 80's. Diagnosis rates in the US for example have tripled since 1980, in South Korea they have gone up 13x since 1993. Meanwhile the mortality rate has been completely flat. The most likely cause of this is increase in both screening and the sensitivity of testing [1]. There is also a current debate about if we should be screening / treating thyroid cancer the way we are, i.e. it seems like we're detecting a lot of innocuous thyroid cancers and then operating without need resulting in unnecessary life long complications for the person. This is why there is a lot of research out there indicating that the vast majority of the increase in thyroid cancer diagnosis in areas like France is unrelated to Chernobyl. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5745 https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5745
DennisP 8y ago
I don't know about France but in the U.S. nuclear plants are required to put money aside for decommissioning. They were also required to pay into a fund for long-term waste storage, but since the government shut down its long-term waste facility and companies have to store waste on site, a court decided they shouldn't also have to pay into a fund that's not doing anything. Regarding Chernobyl, I'll just mention it was used both for power and weapons production, and lacked basic safety features including a containment dome.
reacweb 8y ago
I'm pro nuclear and french. The media are terrible when speaking about nuclear, but the communication around nuclear is not bad. There is some obsfucation using technical jargon, but almost nothing is hidden. IMHO France has made a big mistake when it has stopped building plants. Now, we have lost most of our know-how. I think the future is solar power and that a nuclear plant build now will become obsolete before being amortized. It is too late to build new nuclear plant and maybe a bit too early to build solar plants.

kuzehanka 8y ago

> Also accidents side effects are downplayed so much it's insulting I think you might have fallen for media bias. While the nuclear industry doesn't have anything resembling a flawless safety record, it's still orders of magnitude safer than all mainstream power sources which see no scrutiny due to the dilution of their impact. Nuclear accidents are viewed as bad in the same way that airline crashes are viewed as bad, despite airlines being the safest mode of transport and safer than the car journey to the airport. They are extremely rare, and they impact >100 people when they happen so they're always newsworthy. Unlike the 4.6M people that die due to fossil fuel related air pollution worldwide at a steady state each year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents I'm not pro or anti nuclear. I'm just a random AU citizen following the gradient descent path towards a future that least fucks our children.

sametmax 8y ago
What bias ? Telling the population the border is safe knowing it's not and then they get cancer is quite factual. I'm not talking about potential risks, I'm talking about actual confirmed events and the way they have been handled. It's not speculation, it's history. The problem here are not the victims. It's not the risk or the stats. It's respect. E.g: I can read your comment calmly. My friends with his scar in the throat and his helicopter pilot career down the toilet ? He would insult you and you would lose any chance of convincing him and hence his social network about nuclear. So yeah, the pro nuclear community has a serious communication problem.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  I've seen the exact opposite in the general media - when Fukushima was occurring people were buying iodized salt in North America out of panic (I was working at a drug store at the time, I watched it happen). If anything, when people think of nuclear power they only think of the accidents.
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    I had a cousin in CA worried about Fukushima defend her concern by saying that she had a Ukrainian friend whose family was affected by Chernobyl. Two guesses as to how effective it was to tell her that Chernobyl was freaking IN Ukraine and that CA is as far from Fukushima as New York is from Chernobyl. Most people make decisions based on a hazy blur of random exposure to flashy stories, not anything remotely resembling rational adult thought. I don't know what the solution is to nuclear's PR and political problems, but I know that it isn't anything that requires a third grader's level of critical thinking ability.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mbell 8y ago
  > Telling the population the border is safe knowing it's not and then they get cancer is quite factual. It's not so clear cut. Thyroid cancer rates started increasing dramatically almost everywhere in the world in the mid 80's. Diagnosis rates in the US for example have tripled since 1980, in South Korea they have gone up 13x since 1993. Meanwhile the mortality rate has been completely flat. The most likely cause of this is increase in both screening and the sensitivity of testing [1]. There is also a current debate about if we should be screening / treating thyroid cancer the way we are, i.e. it seems like we're detecting a lot of innocuous thyroid cancers and then operating without need resulting in unnecessary life long complications for the person. This is why there is a lot of research out there indicating that the vast majority of the increase in thyroid cancer diagnosis in areas like France is unrelated to Chernobyl. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5745 https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5745

DennisP 8y ago

I don't know about France but in the U.S. nuclear plants are required to put money aside for decommissioning. They were also required to pay into a fund for long-term waste storage, but since the government shut down its long-term waste facility and companies have to store waste on site, a court decided they shouldn't also have to pay into a fund that's not doing anything. Regarding Chernobyl, I'll just mention it was used both for power and weapons production, and lacked basic safety features including a containment dome.

reacweb 8y ago

I'm pro nuclear and french. The media are terrible when speaking about nuclear, but the communication around nuclear is not bad. There is some obsfucation using technical jargon, but almost nothing is hidden. IMHO France has made a big mistake when it has stopped building plants. Now, we have lost most of our know-how. I think the future is solar power and that a nuclear plant build now will become obsolete before being amortized. It is too late to build new nuclear plant and maybe a bit too early to build solar plants.