3 ms·

It isn’t written from a pro-nuclear perspective: it’s just data, with attributed sources. And the majority of those nuclear deaths are from uranium mining.

KirinDave 7y ago
There is an associated article with an obvious bias.
- scrumper 7y ago
  Not seeing that, perhaps because I am on mobile. I have a tab with a chart, a tab with a csv, and a tab with the sources. Edit: or on desktop. Can you post the link to the article you're seeing please?
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
- leereeves 7y ago
  It's pretty clear you're starting with an anti-nuclear bias. Are you sure you're not just seeing a neutral article through the lens of your own bias?
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    Can you clarify which of the following you mean: "It is biased to point out bias in the writing accompanying this chart?" Or "It is biased to point out the facts regarding the realities of nuclear cleanup" or "It is biased to point out that other rather significant forms of energy generation were left out of this comparison without any justification?" For the record, I am biased against centralized power grids. I'd rather see decentralized power grids and as a strategy for those I think RTG piles are a safe and well-understood technology for backstopping other forms of small scale renewable power. Fission is just... it's too expensive for what it is. It centralized too much power with states. It's very dangerous when its safety is inevitably bypassed by industry that could never be held accountable for the tens of thousands of years of human no-go zones that it can produce.
    - scrumper 7y ago
      So your decentralized grid involves large-scale deployment of RTGs? Have you thought about the security implications of that? It makes it massively easier for bad actors to obtain fissile materials. At least it's feasible to provide high security for centralized nuclear facilities. (In the UK there's even a special police force for this.)
Permit 7y ago
Simply presenting data can still be biased. For example you can choose what metrics to show or you can choose to omit data (deaths for solar and wind) in order to make your preferred choice more palatable. I'm not accusing the authors of doing this because I don't know much about this field, but it's worth being aware that even raw data can be biased.
- scrumper 7y ago
  > (deaths for solar and wind) Good point. And those were interesting omissions, I agree.

KirinDave 7y ago

There is an associated article with an obvious bias.

scrumper 7y ago
Not seeing that, perhaps because I am on mobile. I have a tab with a chart, a tab with a csv, and a tab with the sources. Edit: or on desktop. Can you post the link to the article you're seeing please?
- KirinDave 7y ago
  https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
leereeves 7y ago
It's pretty clear you're starting with an anti-nuclear bias. Are you sure you're not just seeing a neutral article through the lens of your own bias?
- KirinDave 7y ago
  Can you clarify which of the following you mean: "It is biased to point out bias in the writing accompanying this chart?" Or "It is biased to point out the facts regarding the realities of nuclear cleanup" or "It is biased to point out that other rather significant forms of energy generation were left out of this comparison without any justification?" For the record, I am biased against centralized power grids. I'd rather see decentralized power grids and as a strategy for those I think RTG piles are a safe and well-understood technology for backstopping other forms of small scale renewable power. Fission is just... it's too expensive for what it is. It centralized too much power with states. It's very dangerous when its safety is inevitably bypassed by industry that could never be held accountable for the tens of thousands of years of human no-go zones that it can produce.
  - scrumper 7y ago
    So your decentralized grid involves large-scale deployment of RTGs? Have you thought about the security implications of that? It makes it massively easier for bad actors to obtain fissile materials. At least it's feasible to provide high security for centralized nuclear facilities. (In the UK there's even a special police force for this.)

Permit 7y ago

Simply presenting data can still be biased. For example you can choose what metrics to show or you can choose to omit data (deaths for solar and wind) in order to make your preferred choice more palatable. I'm not accusing the authors of doing this because I don't know much about this field, but it's worth being aware that even raw data can be biased.

scrumper 7y ago
> (deaths for solar and wind) Good point. And those were interesting omissions, I agree.