4 ms·

Anti-scientific, or we learned from our mistakes? We can barely build a bridge that lasts for 50 years, but somehow we are going to magically build containment

Anti-scientific, or we learned from our mistakes? We can barely build a bridge that lasts for 50 years, but somehow we are going to magically build containment units for waste which last 1,000s? The science has shown us that Nuclear electricity is incredibly dangerous, and that humans are mostly too incompetent to maintain it safely. I say this as the child of a Nuclear Physicist who spent half of his life working on weapons, and half at a power plant. Dad didn't think we were up to the responsibility either. I was just in Belarus, a friend of mine told me that since Chernobyl 20 members of her family have died of cancer. Cancer isn't fun, I will tell you from experience. There's more to consider than "does it work in the lab?" and "will it be cheaper"?.

roenxi 7y ago
Options for death are basically either heart attack, cancer or other [0]. Cancer is horrible, but that isn't a very telling example without more detail. > We can barely build a bridge that lasts for 50 years, but somehow we are going to magically build containment units for waste which last 1,000s? We've had nuclear power for ~70 years. There is a very high likelihood that if we push on with nuclear power we will either be reprocessing that 'waste' for fuel at some point or it will be inert enough that it doesn't really matter. The idea that we in 2019 need to take responsibility for the next 15 generations is absurd. Anyone who tried that at any point in the past would have been at best wasting their time; technology has moved too quickly. Our ancestors might as well have worried that by 2019 we'd look back on them with contempt for not leaving us a strategic 10t reserve of bronze for forging our swords and shields. The biggest risk is that in 60 years they will dig it up and hurl it at their enemies, on purpose, as a dirty bomb. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
lozenge 7y ago
Coal based power causes 800,000 premature deaths every year, can we shut them down for their incompetence?
godelski 7y ago
>Anti-scientific, or we learned from our mistakes? I would say that when you are valuing the opinion of the public and/or political groups over the opinion the scientific consensus (i.e. the IPCC and other) then that is the definition of anti-scientific. (As to Chernobyl, I would also call building a positive void coefficient reactor is also anti-scientific, considering it was against recommendation).

roenxi 7y ago

Options for death are basically either heart attack, cancer or other [0]. Cancer is horrible, but that isn't a very telling example without more detail. > We can barely build a bridge that lasts for 50 years, but somehow we are going to magically build containment units for waste which last 1,000s? We've had nuclear power for ~70 years. There is a very high likelihood that if we push on with nuclear power we will either be reprocessing that 'waste' for fuel at some point or it will be inert enough that it doesn't really matter. The idea that we in 2019 need to take responsibility for the next 15 generations is absurd. Anyone who tried that at any point in the past would have been at best wasting their time; technology has moved too quickly. Our ancestors might as well have worried that by 2019 we'd look back on them with contempt for not leaving us a strategic 10t reserve of bronze for forging our swords and shields. The biggest risk is that in 60 years they will dig it up and hurl it at their enemies, on purpose, as a dirty bomb. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

lozenge 7y ago

Coal based power causes 800,000 premature deaths every year, can we shut them down for their incompetence?

godelski 7y ago

>Anti-scientific, or we learned from our mistakes? I would say that when you are valuing the opinion of the public and/or political groups over the opinion the scientific consensus (i.e. the IPCC and other) then that is the definition of anti-scientific. (As to Chernobyl, I would also call building a positive void coefficient reactor is also anti-scientific, considering it was against recommendation).