3 ms·

"You can guess which side nuclear energy falls on.". Didn't get that. From far, this is a good option. Is it what is this sentence is intended to communicate ?

neilkakkar 7y ago
Yes. It's a good option, safer than the rest, but a few incidents have blasted the risk out of proportion. Is that not clear enough as I imagined? :$
- zettacircl 7y ago
  Well. The article is very interesting. I'm already convinced about the nuclear-aspects of it. However, it does not "shows-up" super clearly. Especially : “The Alar tale illustrates a basic limitation in the ability of our mind to deal with small risks: we either ignore them altogether or give them far too much weight—nothing in between.” is kind of misleading. As you suggest Fukushima, etc, it seems it falls in the second category. However, because you are not talking a lot about it, it may fall in the prior one. The link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daminozide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daminozide also leads to something we believed as harmless, which in the end wasn't. So .. To me -not native speaker - I could read whatever I wanted in this sentence. :) Also, if we stay nuclear-centered : "Molten Salt Fusion Reactors, please?". What are you exactly looking for with this technology ? Compactness ? Something else ? :) Unfortunately this guy has very few intervention in English and is mostly French-centered. However, I would highly suggest to see one of his intervention (subtitled in english, if the translation is correct enough ?): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNovJemYKcdKt7PDdptJZfQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNovJemYKcdKt7PDdptJZfQ
  - neilkakkar 7y ago
    Right, about the fusion reactors, I should link to this, too: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/02/26/molten-salt-nuclear-reactors/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/02/26/molten-sal...
- zettacircl 7y ago
  And, well, the question is also about the scientific-evidence-based that are lacking medias that incidents have been misleading for a large part of the population. Coal is killing hundreds of thousands of people per year, as so alcohol and smoking do. Even if - fact based - nuclear incidents produced only thousands of deaths (not yearly, but in total : nearly 0 for Fukushima / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... , questionable for Chernobyl, etc.); people are really scared for "media"-related reasons.
  - neilkakkar 7y ago
    Exactly, something to bring to light. This is what I link to in the post: https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
    - zettacircl 7y ago
      Definitely, it would be much clearer in the article ! :) A shame that renewable energy production's deaths are not counted .. It's hard because it depends where it had been produced. But this would have been super nice to find such statistics !
      - neilkakkar 7y ago
        Ah, I see! So, if you look at the line above the line you quoted, I quote this same link in the article :) Is it not visible? ( I hope I didn't mess up deployment again :P )
        zettacircl 7y ago
        You're right. My miss. I focused more on the quote that on what's before.

neilkakkar 7y ago

Yes. It's a good option, safer than the rest, but a few incidents have blasted the risk out of proportion. Is that not clear enough as I imagined? :$

zettacircl 7y ago
Well. The article is very interesting. I'm already convinced about the nuclear-aspects of it. However, it does not "shows-up" super clearly. Especially : “The Alar tale illustrates a basic limitation in the ability of our mind to deal with small risks: we either ignore them altogether or give them far too much weight—nothing in between.” is kind of misleading. As you suggest Fukushima, etc, it seems it falls in the second category. However, because you are not talking a lot about it, it may fall in the prior one. The link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daminozide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daminozide also leads to something we believed as harmless, which in the end wasn't. So .. To me -not native speaker - I could read whatever I wanted in this sentence. :) Also, if we stay nuclear-centered : "Molten Salt Fusion Reactors, please?". What are you exactly looking for with this technology ? Compactness ? Something else ? :) Unfortunately this guy has very few intervention in English and is mostly French-centered. However, I would highly suggest to see one of his intervention (subtitled in english, if the translation is correct enough ?): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNovJemYKcdKt7PDdptJZfQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNovJemYKcdKt7PDdptJZfQ
- neilkakkar 7y ago
  Right, about the fusion reactors, I should link to this, too: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/02/26/molten-salt-nuclear-reactors/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/02/26/molten-sal...
zettacircl 7y ago
And, well, the question is also about the scientific-evidence-based that are lacking medias that incidents have been misleading for a large part of the population. Coal is killing hundreds of thousands of people per year, as so alcohol and smoking do. Even if - fact based - nuclear incidents produced only thousands of deaths (not yearly, but in total : nearly 0 for Fukushima / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... , questionable for Chernobyl, etc.); people are really scared for "media"-related reasons.
- neilkakkar 7y ago
  Exactly, something to bring to light. This is what I link to in the post: https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
  - zettacircl 7y ago
    Definitely, it would be much clearer in the article ! :) A shame that renewable energy production's deaths are not counted .. It's hard because it depends where it had been produced. But this would have been super nice to find such statistics !
    - neilkakkar 7y ago
      Ah, I see! So, if you look at the line above the line you quoted, I quote this same link in the article :) Is it not visible? ( I hope I didn't mess up deployment again :P )
      - zettacircl 7y ago
        You're right. My miss. I focused more on the quote that on what's before.