4 ms·

They don't have ""reasonable"" concerns with scare quotes. They have legitimately reasonable concerns. Nuclear is prohibitively expensive, inherently dangerous

They don't have ""reasonable"" concerns with scare quotes. They have legitimately reasonable concerns. Nuclear is prohibitively expensive, inherently dangerous (in terms of being high-stakes), difficult to oversee properly (particularly since reactors can outlive governments), and it requires disposal of some of the most toxic waste mankind has ever produced. I have an answer to all of those concerns, but that does NOT mean they're any less reasonable. Anti-vaxx on the other hand have completely UNreasonable concerns. Most of those I talk to in the anti-vaxx movement still think there's a risk of autism. Many think this is all a conspiracy by big pharma to sell more medicine. That's not reasonable. That's not even "reasonable". That's a conspiracy theory. I think there's a fundamental difference here as well as a difference in scale. That's why I'm saying this is a terrible comparison.

option 7y ago
no there is no difference. Both don’t understand science and basic statistics. Go look up on which energy source is statistically safer (we have decades of operations and accidents now) Regarding vaccines there were actually some “oh shit” moments which turned out to be OK, but anti-vaxers lack of science knowledge make them ignorant of those (google sv40 virus and polio vaccine)
- nugator 7y ago
  Are you saying that everyone understanding science and basic statistics should be pro nuclear power plants as the best way of generating power?
  - option 7y ago
    yes
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      Anyone understanding economics, and not ignorant on the current state of the technology, cannot be pro-nuclear. The pro-nuclear position is very much based on wishful thinking about cost reduction.
- falcrist 7y ago
  The anti-nuclear folks often understand science and stats just fine. They inflate legitimate concerns to argue against having more nuclear plants in favor of having more renewables. Almost none of the anti-vaxx people I've encountered base their concerns on science. They spout conspiracy theories. Also, why are you telling me to go look up which source is safer? I already told you I support nuclear.
avar 7y ago
They are unreasonable concerns because they're not in any way grounded in reality. I can also argue that we don't need vaccinations, we just all have to go live in our own self-sustaining personal space stations in orbit, and I'd be right. You don't need disease prevention without a transmission vector. Seems like anti-vaccination can be reasonable and scientific, who knew? Similarly, the practical effects of the public policy nuclear skeptics campaign for amount to support for energy sources that are way more harmful than nuclear power could ever be. Nuclear power is only "prohibitively expensive" because CO^2 emitting energy sources somehow get a pass on the cost of scrubbing all that carbon from the atmosphere, and if we're going to talk about "inherently dangerous" I'd like to point you to the N=1 experiment we're currently running on the Earth with global warming. Similarly, I guess "toxic waste" doesn't count if you just disperse it in the atmosphere instead of putting it in barrels and store it at a nuclear power plant. The anti-nuclear movement is not just in favor of having "more renewables" as you argue in another reply. First of all, that movement has been a major influence in public policy since the early late 70s to early 80s, way before renewables were a viable alternative for grid power. Secondly, there's a lot of things which we'll still need something like nuclear energy for even if we assume a renewable grid, e.g. merchant ships which are a major worldwide source of carbon emissions. It's not viable to power those sorts of things on solar, wind or battery power. I think you'll find that even "neo-anti-nuclear" folks (if we can call them that) don't generally hold the nuanced view that they'd rather have solar or wind powering their home, but that they're also fine with nuclear merchant shipping and fishing vessels.
- falcrist 7y ago
  > They are unreasonable concerns because they're not in any way grounded in reality. This is incorrect. The issues of safety, cost, waste disposal, etc are problems that people have spent enormous time and money trying to solve. The fact that they don't remotely outweigh the downsides of not using nuclear doesn't make them unreasonable or any less real. Also, renewable energy has been a thing since before the 70s and 80s. The rest of your post is simply an argument against the anti-nuclear movement. As I've repeatedly said, I agree with the pro-nuclear arguments. That's not the distinction I'm making.

option 7y ago

no there is no difference. Both don’t understand science and basic statistics. Go look up on which energy source is statistically safer (we have decades of operations and accidents now) Regarding vaccines there were actually some “oh shit” moments which turned out to be OK, but anti-vaxers lack of science knowledge make them ignorant of those (google sv40 virus and polio vaccine)

nugator 7y ago
Are you saying that everyone understanding science and basic statistics should be pro nuclear power plants as the best way of generating power?
- option 7y ago
  yes
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Anyone understanding economics, and not ignorant on the current state of the technology, cannot be pro-nuclear. The pro-nuclear position is very much based on wishful thinking about cost reduction.
falcrist 7y ago
The anti-nuclear folks often understand science and stats just fine. They inflate legitimate concerns to argue against having more nuclear plants in favor of having more renewables. Almost none of the anti-vaxx people I've encountered base their concerns on science. They spout conspiracy theories. Also, why are you telling me to go look up which source is safer? I already told you I support nuclear.

avar 7y ago

They are unreasonable concerns because they're not in any way grounded in reality. I can also argue that we don't need vaccinations, we just all have to go live in our own self-sustaining personal space stations in orbit, and I'd be right. You don't need disease prevention without a transmission vector. Seems like anti-vaccination can be reasonable and scientific, who knew? Similarly, the practical effects of the public policy nuclear skeptics campaign for amount to support for energy sources that are way more harmful than nuclear power could ever be. Nuclear power is only "prohibitively expensive" because CO^2 emitting energy sources somehow get a pass on the cost of scrubbing all that carbon from the atmosphere, and if we're going to talk about "inherently dangerous" I'd like to point you to the N=1 experiment we're currently running on the Earth with global warming. Similarly, I guess "toxic waste" doesn't count if you just disperse it in the atmosphere instead of putting it in barrels and store it at a nuclear power plant. The anti-nuclear movement is not just in favor of having "more renewables" as you argue in another reply. First of all, that movement has been a major influence in public policy since the early late 70s to early 80s, way before renewables were a viable alternative for grid power. Secondly, there's a lot of things which we'll still need something like nuclear energy for even if we assume a renewable grid, e.g. merchant ships which are a major worldwide source of carbon emissions. It's not viable to power those sorts of things on solar, wind or battery power. I think you'll find that even "neo-anti-nuclear" folks (if we can call them that) don't generally hold the nuanced view that they'd rather have solar or wind powering their home, but that they're also fine with nuclear merchant shipping and fishing vessels.

falcrist 7y ago
> They are unreasonable concerns because they're not in any way grounded in reality. This is incorrect. The issues of safety, cost, waste disposal, etc are problems that people have spent enormous time and money trying to solve. The fact that they don't remotely outweigh the downsides of not using nuclear doesn't make them unreasonable or any less real. Also, renewable energy has been a thing since before the 70s and 80s. The rest of your post is simply an argument against the anti-nuclear movement. As I've repeatedly said, I agree with the pro-nuclear arguments. That's not the distinction I'm making.