4 ms·

Humanity have time and time again proven they can't handle the responsibilities that come with nuclear. An 'I wash my hands and walk away, or even better, make

Humanity have time and time again proven they can't handle the responsibilities that come with nuclear. An 'I wash my hands and walk away, or even better, make a profit of the cleanup when it all goes wrong' neo-liberal market economy that skirts all the dangers 'by design' is a fatal compounding factor.

StavrosK 7y ago
What are those times? It has been massively more safe than almost any other form of energy generation. Edit: Why the downvotes without a counterpoint?
- pastage 7y ago
  You have to define what you mean by safe. It's not good for nuclear proponents that Fukushima and Chernobyl happened, after spending decades telling everyone how some like this could "never" happen. I've read quite a lot of pronuclear books and they are never very good at explaining risks. They basically say we have thought of everything and there is no risks, or talk about non existent tech. This is not good enough. Given their track record. And I'm actually pronuclear.
  - snovv_crash 7y ago
    And the radioactive waste that coal plants spew directly into the atmosphere during normal operation somehow gets a free pass...
    - cygx 7y ago
      At the very least on HN, people are quick to point out the radioactive material released by coal plants - I do not remember a single relevant discussion where it wasn't. Personally, I'm on board with getting rid of nuclear and fossil energy sources both, which appears technologically feasible to me (offshore windparks help with base load, flywheels can get you through the day and power-2-gas through the winter).
    - pastage 7y ago
      It does not get a free pass, coal pollution is one of the biggest issue of the environmental movement. As I said, I like nuclear so I think Germany and Japan are crazy to shut down their nuclear plants, but I can not blame them because I am not convinced by the arguments of the pronuclear movement.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    Here's my source for "safe", I think nobody would disagree that nuclear is the safest in terms of lives lost: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#46abe0eb709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... Yes, Chernobyl happened, but even the worst nuclear accident in the history of mankind is 200 people. Fukushima was 2 or 3? The Banqiao dam was over a hundred THOUSAND dead.
    - pastage 7y ago
      Chernobyl was not just 200 people and if you think that it will be impossible for you to understand the issue. The fallout from Chernobyl made it into the food and nature all over the northern hemisphere, that leaves scars.
      - Grue3 7y ago
        The nature actually thrived because of Chernobyl disaster. Even some endangered species started to rebound without human interference. [1] In Fukushima zone there's been a significant increase of wild boars [2] [1] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151008-chernobyl-animals-thrive-without-people-science/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151008-chernobyl... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/03/the-wild-boars-of-fukushima/519066/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/03/the-wild-boars-of-...
        arrrg 7y ago
        Obviously nature thrived there. Areas where people don’t go are like that. It’s not unlike nature reserves. People are a danger to nature. The direct cause is that there are no people around, not that a nuclear disaster happened. The nuclear disaster caused the people to leave, which makes the disaster the indirect cause of nature thriving. It’s not as though the increase in background radiation made nature thrive. The lack of people did that. I’m all in favor of nature reserves, but we do not need nuclear disasters to create them and I don’t think we should let luck pick around which nuclear plant we want a nature reserve. We should put our nature reserves wherever we damn well please. (I’m honestly questioning whether you actually read the article you linked. I will admit, I also didn’t before I wrote the comment. I was surprised to find that it makes essentially the same argument I’m using, down to using the same exact words.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
omginternets 7y ago
... and you trust humanity with coal? How can you suggest that there's no hand-washing going on with coal emissions and keep a straight face?

StavrosK 7y ago

What are those times? It has been massively more safe than almost any other form of energy generation. Edit: Why the downvotes without a counterpoint?

pastage 7y ago
You have to define what you mean by safe. It's not good for nuclear proponents that Fukushima and Chernobyl happened, after spending decades telling everyone how some like this could "never" happen. I've read quite a lot of pronuclear books and they are never very good at explaining risks. They basically say we have thought of everything and there is no risks, or talk about non existent tech. This is not good enough. Given their track record. And I'm actually pronuclear.
- snovv_crash 7y ago
  And the radioactive waste that coal plants spew directly into the atmosphere during normal operation somehow gets a free pass...
  - cygx 7y ago
    At the very least on HN, people are quick to point out the radioactive material released by coal plants - I do not remember a single relevant discussion where it wasn't. Personally, I'm on board with getting rid of nuclear and fossil energy sources both, which appears technologically feasible to me (offshore windparks help with base load, flywheels can get you through the day and power-2-gas through the winter).
  - pastage 7y ago
    It does not get a free pass, coal pollution is one of the biggest issue of the environmental movement. As I said, I like nuclear so I think Germany and Japan are crazy to shut down their nuclear plants, but I can not blame them because I am not convinced by the arguments of the pronuclear movement.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  Here's my source for "safe", I think nobody would disagree that nuclear is the safest in terms of lives lost: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#46abe0eb709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... Yes, Chernobyl happened, but even the worst nuclear accident in the history of mankind is 200 people. Fukushima was 2 or 3? The Banqiao dam was over a hundred THOUSAND dead.
  - pastage 7y ago
    Chernobyl was not just 200 people and if you think that it will be impossible for you to understand the issue. The fallout from Chernobyl made it into the food and nature all over the northern hemisphere, that leaves scars.
    - Grue3 7y ago
      The nature actually thrived because of Chernobyl disaster. Even some endangered species started to rebound without human interference. [1] In Fukushima zone there's been a significant increase of wild boars [2] [1] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151008-chernobyl-animals-thrive-without-people-science/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151008-chernobyl... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/03/the-wild-boars-of-fukushima/519066/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/03/the-wild-boars-of-...
      - arrrg 7y ago
        Obviously nature thrived there. Areas where people don’t go are like that. It’s not unlike nature reserves. People are a danger to nature. The direct cause is that there are no people around, not that a nuclear disaster happened. The nuclear disaster caused the people to leave, which makes the disaster the indirect cause of nature thriving. It’s not as though the increase in background radiation made nature thrive. The lack of people did that. I’m all in favor of nature reserves, but we do not need nuclear disasters to create them and I don’t think we should let luck pick around which nuclear plant we want a nature reserve. We should put our nature reserves wherever we damn well please. (I’m honestly questioning whether you actually read the article you linked. I will admit, I also didn’t before I wrote the comment. I was surprised to find that it makes essentially the same argument I’m using, down to using the same exact words.)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

omginternets 7y ago

... and you trust humanity with coal? How can you suggest that there's no hand-washing going on with coal emissions and keep a straight face?