4 ms·

It is a cognitive bias to believe the worst thing that has happened in the past is the worst that will happen in the future. Chernobyl occurred in an era with l

It is a cognitive bias to believe the worst thing that has happened in the past is the worst that will happen in the future. Chernobyl occurred in an era with less people globally, less people locally, worse sensing technology/less transparent politics to more accurately gauge worldwide impact, and smaller nuclear reactors. Chernobyl proves the black swan risk could have been far graver - making Kiev and large parts of Ukraine uninhabitable. Most people are logical to choose a risk they can understand (solar, carbon, etc.) vs a complicated risk they can’t (nuclear). Which may be 1000x worse. The nuclear argument gets weaker by the year considering rapid advancements in renewables and the decades+ period of time it takes to build a new nuclear reactor. We have the safest nuclear reactor available. The sun.

njarboe 7y ago
The amount of cancer caused by the sun each year worldwide is probably in the millions. Not very safe, but turning it off would be worse. Life is full of trade offs. Until coal burning plants are all gone the world should embrace nuclear power as a much better alternative.
- badloginagain 7y ago
  Shit if you want to talk about radioactive damage, coal mines emit huge amounts of radiation that aren't "counted" because the radiation is "naturally occuring".
  - saalweachter 7y ago
    My personal favorite analogue are coal seam fires, which can render areas inhospitable and burn for hundreds or thousands of years.
jdietrich 7y ago
The soviet nuclear industry was very close to the worst-case scenario - inherently unsafe reactors being operated by badly trained personnel and overseen by a corrupt and secretive agency that barely deserves the title of "regulator". The Chernobyl disaster could have been far worse if it weren't for the extraordinary bravery of the liquidators, but there's just no way that such a catastrophically dangerous reactor could be built in 2019. The RBMK reactors at Chernobyl were based on a design from the the early 1950s and were crude even by the standards of the time. The reactor design is inherently unsafe for several reasons, which was compounded by inadequate monitoring and containment systems. Safe operation of the reactor was hindered by a deliberate and systematic cover-up of the flawed nature of the reactor design; the emergency response was similarly hindered by a deliberate and systematic cover-up of the scale of the disaster. Comparing a modern nuclear power plant to Chernobyl is like comparing a 2019 Honda Civic with a 1961 Chevy Corvair. We've learned so many lessons and changed our safety culture so profoundly in in the intervening period. If we are allowed to keep developing and building nuclear reactors, we'll keep building safer and more efficient reactors.
- blub 7y ago
  "Comparing a modern nuclear power plant to Chernobyl is like comparing a 2019 Honda Civic with a 1961 Chevy Corvair" That's a pretty interesting metaphor, because while the newer car is indeed much safer, there are many types of accidents where the driver will be killed no matter what car they're driving. Perhaps they'll still have all the body parts attached in the Honda though ;) One of my favorite books is "Normal accidents" by Perrow, where atomic plants are the perfect example of high-risk systems which invite system accidents. Their dedicated chapter is comically horrific. e.g.: "In 1978 a worker changing a light bulb in a control panel at the Rancho Secco 1 reactor in Clay Station, California, dropped the bulb. It created a short circuit in some sensors and controls. Fortunately, the reactor scram controls were not among those affected, and the reactor automatically scrammed. But the loss of some sensors meant the operators could not determine the condition of the plant, and there was a rapid cooling of the core. [...] did not in this case damage the core. But this is probably only because the plant had been operating at full power for less than three years. A spokesman for the NRC said: “If it had been 10 to 15 full power years, instead of two to three, which it was, that vessel might have cracked.” A cracked vessel would result in a loss of coolant and a meltdown; no emergency system would be available to cool the core."
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    I like Normal Accidents as well and I think it should be more widely read. Perrow's thesis was that systems needed three characteristics to generate normal accidents: to be very complex (beyond any single human's detailed comprehension), to be tightly coupled (meaning that the system can change its behaviour quickly) and to have catastrophic potential. Pressurised water designs are inherently complex and coupled because the necessity to circulate fluid at all times without failure, making them complex (lots of moving parts and failure modes) and coupled (failures can rapidly propagate their effects). They also produce plentiful radioactive byproducts. A counterargument is that non-PWR designs in Gen-III+ and Gen-IV actually address some or all of these characteristics. Many of them are much simpler, reducing complexity. Many of them are design to operate passively, reducing complexity and coupling. And some of them reduce radioactive byproducts.
arcticbull 7y ago
You could argue the sun kills far more people (through skin cancer - UV light is a strong mutagen after all) than any nuclear power plant in the history of the world combined.
- patrickhogan1 7y ago
  The issue with this logic is it takes something from a risk bucket that already exists. Sun exposure occurs and has been occurring for some time. The issue with +1 nuclear plants is that every plant built adds a bucket of new risk. This bucket includes a potential black swan event of the greatest risk. Compare it to a "sure thing" on wallstreet. Let's say you hold stock and sell an option contract at a price point you believe will never get hit. Yet if that price point gets hit your entire life savings gets wiped out. This "will never happen" mindset forgets that we as humans don't know what we don't know. We are simple. Nuclear is complex. IMO nuclear could become safer with more investment into it. But why invest in a technology that is less safe than alternatives like solar. The fear that people have of nuclear is a variable to calculate. The first commenter pointed out his girlfriend is afraid of nuclear power. Fear, stress and anxiety is an emotion that causes physical consequences. If the public is afraid of it and says Not in My Back Yard - it doesn't matter how safe your paper calculations are. Yes - Chernobyl spoiled it for everyone. The rude party guest that got the cops called and forced the party to break up early. It stinks. Thanks Chernobyl for ending the nuclear revolution in its infancy. But it is a reality. Someone will counter-argue that fossil fuels destroyed the ozone layer and increased cancer. This is half-true. Byproducts of fossil fuels. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) damaged the Ozone layer, which increased cancer in subtropic geographies. Companies manufactured CFCs for refrigeration. Not for power plants or core energy. Thus, this line of analysis is a distraction from the core debate. People (especially software engineers) who have low Vitamin D get sick more often. Leading to increased risk of death. A growing belief is that this occurs due to lack of sun exposure. Blue LED light does not count. The sun is there for a reason. Hormesis and evolution required the sun. The last 30 years of consensus that wearing sunscreen all the time is a good thing. Is a viewpoint I wager will change in the next 10 years. With consensus swinging back to a pro sun exposure mindset.
  - 7y ago

njarboe 7y ago

The amount of cancer caused by the sun each year worldwide is probably in the millions. Not very safe, but turning it off would be worse. Life is full of trade offs. Until coal burning plants are all gone the world should embrace nuclear power as a much better alternative.

badloginagain 7y ago
Shit if you want to talk about radioactive damage, coal mines emit huge amounts of radiation that aren't "counted" because the radiation is "naturally occuring".
- saalweachter 7y ago
  My personal favorite analogue are coal seam fires, which can render areas inhospitable and burn for hundreds or thousands of years.

jdietrich 7y ago

The soviet nuclear industry was very close to the worst-case scenario - inherently unsafe reactors being operated by badly trained personnel and overseen by a corrupt and secretive agency that barely deserves the title of "regulator". The Chernobyl disaster could have been far worse if it weren't for the extraordinary bravery of the liquidators, but there's just no way that such a catastrophically dangerous reactor could be built in 2019. The RBMK reactors at Chernobyl were based on a design from the the early 1950s and were crude even by the standards of the time. The reactor design is inherently unsafe for several reasons, which was compounded by inadequate monitoring and containment systems. Safe operation of the reactor was hindered by a deliberate and systematic cover-up of the flawed nature of the reactor design; the emergency response was similarly hindered by a deliberate and systematic cover-up of the scale of the disaster. Comparing a modern nuclear power plant to Chernobyl is like comparing a 2019 Honda Civic with a 1961 Chevy Corvair. We've learned so many lessons and changed our safety culture so profoundly in in the intervening period. If we are allowed to keep developing and building nuclear reactors, we'll keep building safer and more efficient reactors.

blub 7y ago
"Comparing a modern nuclear power plant to Chernobyl is like comparing a 2019 Honda Civic with a 1961 Chevy Corvair" That's a pretty interesting metaphor, because while the newer car is indeed much safer, there are many types of accidents where the driver will be killed no matter what car they're driving. Perhaps they'll still have all the body parts attached in the Honda though ;) One of my favorite books is "Normal accidents" by Perrow, where atomic plants are the perfect example of high-risk systems which invite system accidents. Their dedicated chapter is comically horrific. e.g.: "In 1978 a worker changing a light bulb in a control panel at the Rancho Secco 1 reactor in Clay Station, California, dropped the bulb. It created a short circuit in some sensors and controls. Fortunately, the reactor scram controls were not among those affected, and the reactor automatically scrammed. But the loss of some sensors meant the operators could not determine the condition of the plant, and there was a rapid cooling of the core. [...] did not in this case damage the core. But this is probably only because the plant had been operating at full power for less than three years. A spokesman for the NRC said: “If it had been 10 to 15 full power years, instead of two to three, which it was, that vessel might have cracked.” A cracked vessel would result in a loss of coolant and a meltdown; no emergency system would be available to cool the core."
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  I like Normal Accidents as well and I think it should be more widely read. Perrow's thesis was that systems needed three characteristics to generate normal accidents: to be very complex (beyond any single human's detailed comprehension), to be tightly coupled (meaning that the system can change its behaviour quickly) and to have catastrophic potential. Pressurised water designs are inherently complex and coupled because the necessity to circulate fluid at all times without failure, making them complex (lots of moving parts and failure modes) and coupled (failures can rapidly propagate their effects). They also produce plentiful radioactive byproducts. A counterargument is that non-PWR designs in Gen-III+ and Gen-IV actually address some or all of these characteristics. Many of them are much simpler, reducing complexity. Many of them are design to operate passively, reducing complexity and coupling. And some of them reduce radioactive byproducts.

arcticbull 7y ago

You could argue the sun kills far more people (through skin cancer - UV light is a strong mutagen after all) than any nuclear power plant in the history of the world combined.

patrickhogan1 7y ago
The issue with this logic is it takes something from a risk bucket that already exists. Sun exposure occurs and has been occurring for some time. The issue with +1 nuclear plants is that every plant built adds a bucket of new risk. This bucket includes a potential black swan event of the greatest risk. Compare it to a "sure thing" on wallstreet. Let's say you hold stock and sell an option contract at a price point you believe will never get hit. Yet if that price point gets hit your entire life savings gets wiped out. This "will never happen" mindset forgets that we as humans don't know what we don't know. We are simple. Nuclear is complex. IMO nuclear could become safer with more investment into it. But why invest in a technology that is less safe than alternatives like solar. The fear that people have of nuclear is a variable to calculate. The first commenter pointed out his girlfriend is afraid of nuclear power. Fear, stress and anxiety is an emotion that causes physical consequences. If the public is afraid of it and says Not in My Back Yard - it doesn't matter how safe your paper calculations are. Yes - Chernobyl spoiled it for everyone. The rude party guest that got the cops called and forced the party to break up early. It stinks. Thanks Chernobyl for ending the nuclear revolution in its infancy. But it is a reality. Someone will counter-argue that fossil fuels destroyed the ozone layer and increased cancer. This is half-true. Byproducts of fossil fuels. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) damaged the Ozone layer, which increased cancer in subtropic geographies. Companies manufactured CFCs for refrigeration. Not for power plants or core energy. Thus, this line of analysis is a distraction from the core debate. People (especially software engineers) who have low Vitamin D get sick more often. Leading to increased risk of death. A growing belief is that this occurs due to lack of sun exposure. Blue LED light does not count. The sun is there for a reason. Hormesis and evolution required the sun. The last 30 years of consensus that wearing sunscreen all the time is a good thing. Is a viewpoint I wager will change in the next 10 years. With consensus swinging back to a pro sun exposure mindset.
- 7y ago