4 ms·
Given all of the data presented here is true, does this change the current conclusion that there are less deaths per TWh for nuclear? Or would the inclusion of
by ziddoap 7y ago
Given all of the data presented here is true, does this change the current conclusion that there are less deaths per TWh for nuclear? Or would the inclusion of the increased cancer rates tip the scales?
- mimixco 7y agoThis issue is highly contentious, perhaps nowhere more than on HN. The many nuclear advocates here believe that few people die from nuclear. The anti-nuke crowd disagrees.
- ziddoap 7y agoWell, I've gathered that much. But, just earlier today was a fancy chart comparing deaths/TWh of each energy source, which I believe used the numbers this particular article is refuting. I was wondering if anyone had a similar chart/data, except using the numbers presented in this particular article. Opinions are great and all, but there's actual numbers to use which is what I am more interested in.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoEveryone agrees that few people die. The anti-nuke crowd just doesn't agree that this is indicative of the safety of nuclear power.
- v_lisivka 7y agoSo, if something will produce 7'000'000'000*100TWh, it will be Ok if it kill all humans on Earth? It's just 0.001 death per TWh.
- crispyambulance 7y ago> ... deaths per TWh ... The thing is we have not yet seen "worst case scenario" for a nuclear power accident. As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. We don't know what the actual death/TWh is for nuclear is yet because there hasn't been "enough" TWh's.
- ziddoap 7y agoThat logic can extend to literally any scenario with data. There is never "enough data", especially regarding edge cases or "worst case scenarios". Luckily, we can use the data we have and come up with some intermediate conclusions while more data is collected - rather than sweep it under the rug.
- yongjik 7y agoFor comparison, the "worst case scenario" for fossil fuels is the planet cooking up, crop failures, widespread famine, death of the oceanic ecosystem, and the end of civilization as we know it. (Yes, that's the worst case scenario, but since we're comparing worst cases...) It boggles my mind that we are still burning oil while opposing nuclear because "it's too dangerous."
- crispyambulance 7y agoI'm not saying "it's too dangerous" at all. I am saying that deaths/TWh is NOT a useful metric. It is a ridiculous reductive way of looking at this that assumes a continuous random failure rate. The same applies for fossil fuels although, as you state, it isn't punctuated with the possibility of an immediate catastrophe like a meltdown but something else entirely-- irreversible climate damage.
- angersock 7y ago> As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. [citation needed]
- opo 7y ago>..As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. Chernobyl would have been illegal to build anywhere else in the world since it was such an inherently dangerous design. It isn't really fair to compare it against reactors built anywhere else. At any rate, when you say "As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible." - you need to back that up with something. We've had hundreds of reactors producing hundreds of TWh of electricity per year for decades with less loss of life than any other power source.