5 ms·
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
by 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.
- arcticbull 7y ago> IMO nuclear could become safer with more investment into it. But why invest in a technology that is less safe than alternatives like solar. It isn't. [1,2] In terms of deaths per terawatt-hour, nuclear is much lower than solar and wind. > 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. I agree, people should spend more time in the sun. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#2c0044ec709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... [2] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...