3 ms·

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 ho

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.)
      - Grue3 7y ago
        Ok, so you admit that: 1) increase of background radiation is not harmful to "nature" (usually defined as "all living things, arbitrarily excluding humans"), or at least less harmful than human presence 2) nuclear plants, merely by existing, tend to limit surrounding human population, and in case of accident totally eliminate it 3) the presence of humans is worse for nature than literally the worst nuclear plant accident ever The original argument I was arguing against is "nuclear plants are bad because they're bad for the environment". However all evidence points to nuclear plants being good for the environment. You can't build nature reserves "wherever you damn please" because most habitable areas are already populated by humans. We can however build more nuclear plants, which has a two-pronged effect of reducing carbon emissions and limiting population around them, naturally creating nature hotspots.

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.)
    - Grue3 7y ago
      Ok, so you admit that: 1) increase of background radiation is not harmful to "nature" (usually defined as "all living things, arbitrarily excluding humans"), or at least less harmful than human presence 2) nuclear plants, merely by existing, tend to limit surrounding human population, and in case of accident totally eliminate it 3) the presence of humans is worse for nature than literally the worst nuclear plant accident ever The original argument I was arguing against is "nuclear plants are bad because they're bad for the environment". However all evidence points to nuclear plants being good for the environment. You can't build nature reserves "wherever you damn please" because most habitable areas are already populated by humans. We can however build more nuclear plants, which has a two-pronged effect of reducing carbon emissions and limiting population around them, naturally creating nature hotspots.