23 ms·
Prevented mortality from historical and projected nuclear power (2013)
- october_sky 7y agoMy wife and I started watching HBO's new mini-series "Chernobyl", and she's now terrified of nuclear power plants despite my reassurances. I'll have to show this to her, but based on this anecdote, I suspect more voters who see this TV show will also be biased against nuclear power. Anyone else hear friends/family talking about this show as "terrifying" or "concerning"?
- thinkingkong 7y agoI think the challenge is the “fast acting” vs “slow acting” consequences of our energy choices. Coal and Gas fired generating facilities have long term consequences but a picture of 1000s of people affected with cancer doesnt have the same impact.
- AlanSE 7y agoGas fired plants cause cancer?
- javagram 7y agoGas-fired plants cause global warming.
- NeutronStar 7y agoThe particulates they emit is cancerous.
- gnode 7y agoNatural gas exhaust still has some particulates, carcinogens, and radioactive components, but is generally much cleaner than coal. Because it's in the gas / liquefied phase, the most harmful components of raw natural gas (sulphur and heavy metal compounds) can be largely processed out before burning. With coal, these have to be scrubbed from the exhaust, which is more difficult and usually less thorough.
- DennisP 7y agoDam failures are pretty fast acting, but people aren't afraid of dams.
- TremendousJudge 7y agoEverybody understands (or think they understand, anyway) water flow and dams. Very few people understand radiation
- falcolas 7y agoJust tell them that the estimated number of TOTAL human deaths from Chernobyl (the worst nuclear accident in history) is 4k, in comparison to the 1.84 million above. Or with the 230,000 killed by the Banqiao Dam collapse in China. Yeah, it probably won't work, but it's worth noting the comparisons.
- Causality1 7y agoHumans are really terrible at doing math, especially long-term math. I've had so many opinions it was downright painful to change after someone showed me the real math.
- freebear 7y ago4k? "They" can come up with any number they want to, some say it is as low as 28, counting only the dead firefighters. I live in the worst fallout area in Sweden and our nature is still very radioactive. Cancer rates here are of course increased compared to the rest of the country. And of course, the worst is yet to come. I believe more than 4k Swedish people have died or have their lives drastically shortened due to Chernobyl. https://www.thelocal.se/20070504/7200 https://www.thelocal.se/20070504/7200
- falcolas 7y ago4 Thousand is based on the WHO findings. So, let’s toss on the 8k instances of cancer from your source, and the 41k cancer rates attributed to Chernobyl by International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, and we are still well short of the actual deaths caused by one dam failure. Yeah, Chernobyl is a tragedy; but let’s not pretend its worse than all the other power generation disasters.
- nategri 7y agoI'm quite pro-nuke, so that's my bias, but I'm parsing the show as more about the consequences of normalization of deviance than anything.
- vbuwivbiu 7y agoshe's right to assume worst-case scenarios. We're too smug in the west.
- izzydata 7y agoI haven't heard anyone discuss how modern nuclear plants are terrifying. Only how the thought of being near Chernobyl would have been terrifying. The events would have been terrifying for the people there. I can see how this show could cause an increase in fear of nuclear plants though.
- fbender 7y agoBecause hardly any modern plants are operating, by far most are 70-80ies era. On top of that, consider the cost of currently planned or built plants and their schedule overruns: They may be less terrifying (if you manage to cancel out the psychological effect) but then they are often not considered „worth it“.
- erentz 7y agoNot to underplay the seriousness of the event or heroism of all those involved in the aftermath, but the show does make it look scarier than it deserves. For me part of this is simply down to the Russian equipment - it just looks scarier seeing those guys in those green rubbery looking suits like something out of an alien movie, vs when you see guys at Fukushima in plain white protective gear. It's worth pointing out that the RBMK reactor design used at Chernobyl has no comparison in the west. Not to mention they had no (none!) containment building on those things. The design of the RBMK was in part because it's simpler to build. It's a kind of evolution of the very early reactor "piles" used during the lead up to and through the Manhattan project. The pressure vessels used in western reactors are difficult to produce. (We apparently no longer have any iron works left in the US that could produce them, the last one closed down some time ago.) On top of being simpler to build the RBMK style reactor also has (IIRC) the benefit (for Russia) that it can be used to produce the right kind of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Something that in the west was done in dedicated military reactors because civilian designed light water reactors suck for that task.
- jabl 7y agoThe windscale reactors the UK used for Pu production were open cycle air cooled. Pull in air from the outside, run it through the core, and out via the chimney. One morning in 1957 operators coming to work noticed thick black smoke coming from the chimney and thought "this can't be good" (it wasn't).
- cm2187 7y agoAnd even despite the many design flaws of these early reactors, the reason it blew up is because of the reckless behaviour of some local Homer Simpson.
- ssully 7y agoI am going to guess that people calling the show terrifying has nothing to do with the green rubber suits.
- repolfx 7y agoThe thing about the iron works is actually one of the main problems with scaling up nuclear power. Modern designs are very safe yes, but, building them requires steelworking ability that apparently only exists in (yes!) Russia and Japan. There is a multi-decade backlog of orders for the necessary metal, and learning how to work steel in the necessary way is ... not trivial. So it's not even like we could build tons of reactors if we wanted to, designs or no designs.
- Isamu 7y agoPeople also seem to equate nuclear power accidents with nuclear bombs, like a Hiroshima bomb.
- siruncledrew 7y agoIt is terrifying when things go wrong. The "Chernobyl" series definitely shows that. For the circumstances, the number of deaths Chernobyl contributed to were much lower than the worst case it could have been. It's not surprising the public responds trepidatiously in the aftermath of a large-scale disaster (see trends of nuclear plant operation in the aftermath of Chernobyl and Fukushima: https://sites.utexas.edu/mecc/files/2014/05/Worldwide-Reactor-Trends1.png https://sites.utexas.edu/mecc/files/2014/05/Worldwide-Reacto...). Nuclear bombs also caused quite a public scare in the 40s-60s following WWII after images of the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be seen. The magnitudes of destruction scared people enough to build fallout shelters. While nuclear power has brought a lot of good, it has also brought a lot of bad. Witnessing the bad changes people. If things go wrong either intentionally or unintentionally, the negative response is going to exceed the positive response, and those responsible for the nuclear plant are going to get the blame for bringing disaster upon everyone else. "Nuclear" is a tough sentiment to paint positively, when so many unspecialized members of the public think straight to disasters associated with "nuclear". There's pros and cons to many different energy sources, whether fossil fuel, nuclear, solar/wind, hydro, geothermal, etc. Each decision means accepting the possible consequences that could happen. No one solution is an obvious panacea.
- hanniabu 7y agoI see this argument made again and again. Just because one is "worse" by selective parameters doesn't mean that the other option is any good either. Can we build safe nuclear power plants? Yes. Does money, greed, pride, and stupidity triumph in the end? Yes. And then you end up with safety precautions and risks being hand-waved just as what is happening in the US where most of the nuclear power plants are operating beyond their designed life span. Why are we ignoring the fact that this geographic location is unusable now? I don't see anybody rushing to get in line to walk into the Fukushima plant or to move back to Chernobyl. There's more damage than immediate death. That environment is lost. It contaminates ground water, soil, the wildlife, the air. You're willfully ignoring the reality and taking the hopeful ideals.
- soperj 7y agoSame thing happens with Hydro plants, except immediately.
- falcolas 7y agoAnimals and plant life are thriving in the fallout zone of Chernobyl. It's only unusable by humans, and even then not all humans; there is a community that lives in the fallout zone, not to mention tourism. https://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com/ https://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com/ Also, money and greed does not always win out. See: the Onagawa nuclear reactor which is closer to the epicenter than Fukishima, and which was properly managed and is still running.
- freebear 7y agoThriving? https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/april-27-2019-oilsands-emissions-underestimated-chernobyl-s-wildlife-a-comet-trapped-in-an-asteroid-and-mo-1.5111304/cataracts-small-brains-and-dna-damage-chernobyl-s-wildlife-33-years-after-the-meltdown-1.5111321 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/april-27-2019-oilsands-emiss... They are f'd, their DNA is also f'd so...
- arcticbull 7y agoThat wasn't my take-away after reading this. The article shows that animals are in fact being affected by the radiation. Is that not expected? It'd only been 33 years at the time this article was written - a handful of generations - and evolution takes time. Life on this planet hasn't really evolved to deal with high levels of background radiation for the most part. That said, it appears they are in fact evolving: > "Some birds make use of melanin for coloration, but they also make use of the precursor to melanin as an antioxidant, which may provide some measure of defence against the ionizing radiation," said Mousseau. > In a study, he found that those birds that seemed to show less genetic damage ended up being a bit lighter coloured. > "It looks like there's a tradeoff in the use of this antioxidant between colouration and defence against oxidative stress or ionizing radiation." Or, alternatively, to paraphrase, while the animals there haven't yet evolved a complete defense to the ionizing radiation, some species are expressing traits correlated to their ability to withstand it. This gives them a survival advantage, so over time, it stands to reason they will compensate. > "But it's clear that there's more going on than just the acute exposure effects." I must have missed the part where the author threw up their hands and yelled "looks like the animals are f'd." I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that changes to the environment are very much in nature's wheelhouse. Humans, especially individual humans, are the fragile ones. Life has shown itself incredibly resilient, and some increases in background radiation aren't about to stop it. After all, tardigrades are able to survive constant irradiation hundreds of times the lethal dose for humans while frozen solid in space.
- PeterStuer 7y agoSadly humans have proven multiple times that they are not capable of handling the responsibilities that come with nuclear power. It should be a no-go path, and existing nuclear should be phased out immediately and fast. On top of that the neo-liberal market economy is a compounding risk, ultimately absolving all responsibilities or even rewarding companies for failing to protect the public.
- bargl 7y agoI couldn't disagree more. We have proven that we aren't capable of handling the responsibility that comes with handling coal/gas. And unless you live in a shack in the woods you're a contributor. Nuclear is the only energy source where we have a 100% plan for the byproduct of energy. While I agree we really need to come up with an alternative. Nuclear may be the only short term stopgap that gets us off of CO2 producing plants in the short term so we can get to a long term. No nuclear planet has sent our entire planet on a crash course with climate change... Every energy source that powers our lives has a trade off and a byproduct. We all need to admit that, accept it and then make a plan to live in harmony with as much of the earth as we can.
- hanniabu 7y agoAll it takes is a decent natural disaster and you have a nuclear catastrophe. With global warming, this risk of an unusual or unplanned/unlikely event for that geographic region increases.
- bargl 7y agoDevastating natural disaster. Fukishima handled the earthquake fine it was when (i believe) their generators were washed away that the problem started. I would never advocate for a nuclear power plant on the side of an active volcano. at all. You put the right technology in the right spot. Also, I'm really hoping to see thorium get more time in the sun because it doesn't go critical and cause a catastrophe. They melt down but don't explode (from what I've been able to find).
- vbuwivbiu 7y agoFalse-dichotomy. There are plenty of ways to generate energy and the more diverse, less centralized they are, the more robust the system is. Wow since the Chernobyl series HN has suddenly had an uptick in pro-nuclear posts.
- erentz 7y agoI think it started before the Chernobyl series. There have been a lot of increasingly serious climate change reports over the past year, and when you start looking into what can be done, you have to take another neutral look at nuclear power. And when you look at it neutrally in the face of the alternatives you quickly get converted.
- Meandering 7y agoI think there are a lot of people, like myself, who see that the path to responsible power generation includes nuclear power. I'm all for solar and wind although, I don't see the current manufacturing, logistics, and economic environment supporting a full transition. If new nuclear is done correctly, a big if, we can take leaps towards reducing CO2 emissions versus small drawn out steps.
- sebow 7y agoNuclear energy is one of the most green sources of energy out there and probably the only feasible link between today's dominant fossil fuel and the decades that separate us from fully green and efficient implementations of wind/solar/geothermal/etc. sources. It's really a shame that panic and stupidity prevail and the irony runs high when apparently a high percentage of the people "who care most" about the environment don't really accept this as (the possible only) asnwer.
- perfunctory 7y agoWhen discussing the safety of nuclear power most comments seem to focus on the number of deaths. While death count is tragic in itself, it doesn't capture the full extent of human drama. Consider this Fukushima "the nuclear accident was responsible for 154,000 being evacuated" "In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation, decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen ($187 billion), nearly double the 2013 estimate." Chernobyl "In 2005, the total cost over 30 years for Belarus alone was estimated at US$235 billion; about $301 billion in today's dollars given inflation rates." "between 5% and 7% of government spending in Ukraine is still related to Chernobyl" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
- yongjik 7y agoWell, for comparison, https://e360.yale.edu/digest/coal-costs-us-half-trillion-annually-in-hidden-costs-study-says https://e360.yale.edu/digest/coal-costs-us-half-trillion-ann... > Coal production costs the U.S. up to $500 billion each year in hidden health, economic, and environmental impacts, according to a new study by Harvard researchers. https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/news/2018/0606.html https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/news/2018/0606.html > ... Britain’s car addiction ... is likely costing our NHS and society in general more than £6 billion per year. (Which is about $7B USD, for a single modest-sized country, for a single mode of fossil fuel consumption, per year.) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/03/19/climate-change-could-force-over-140-million-to-migrate-within-countries-by-2050-world-bank-report https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/03/19/c... > Climate Change Could Force Over 140 Million to Migrate Within Countries by 2050: World Bank Report (Well, of course, such predictions are very imprecise: it could be 30 million, or 2 billion. But most likely more than Fukushima, by a very wide margin.)
- gnode 7y agoI think it's important to avoid treating the history of nuclear power as expectation for its future use. Nuclear power has evolved, much like fossil fuel power has evolved. When we consider future use of fossil fuels, we do not think of the Great Smog of London which acutely killed 4000 people in a few days, plus around 6000 in the following months. Cognitive biases prevent us from being as forgiving with nuclear power, despite the evolution of its safety.
- zepearl 7y agoWikipedia has many lists about nuclear accidents - the "mother" of all those articles might be this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and... It points to other sub-lists and some of them have links to sub-sub-articles that explain what happened in a specific case, for example this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident... Unluckily not all lists have always a link available to the detailed article, so for example in the case of the SL-1 accident ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 ) you'll find the link to the details only in this other list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid... Reading about the details has always been very interesting for me as I love everything involving cause/effect.
- beecat 7y agoComparing 'Apples' that are killing us to 'Oranges' that will kill us.