5 ms·

>Hydro is on par with nuclear in capacity, but has caused an order of magnitude more deaths per kWh. Is this factoring in all future deaths from existing nucle

>Hydro is on par with nuclear in capacity, but has caused an order of magnitude more deaths per kWh. Is this factoring in all future deaths from existing nuclear incidents? If nuclear causes 1 death a year for 500 years and hydro causes 100 immediate deaths, which one is more lethal? Also consider the morality of pushing the costs of a failure generations down the road.

ceejayoz 7y ago
The UN estimates (https://www.un.org/press/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm https://www.un.org/press/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm) 4,000 deaths total for Chernobyl. The EPA estimates zero deaths for Three Mile Island. The worst dam failure in history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam) killed somewhere between 150,000 and 230,000 people. Hydro has a big head start.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  Chernobyl is so different from a modern reactor, that it's not really useful to judge to current risks with existing reactors, let alone planned new Gen III+ reactors which are orders of magnitudes safer.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    In fairness, the same is probably true for dams, as well - we've gotten a lot better at engineering them.
    - geggam 7y ago
      Recent California flooding makes me question this.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        Yea, people talk about not being able to fully predict nuclear disasters, then turn around and claim sun, rain, and wind are totally predictive enough to rely on. I get that the risks vary, but man, a lot of people really don't understand statistics and probability.
      - yellowapple 7y ago
        And in particular the recent near-failure of the dam in Oroville. That could've significantly impacted hundreds of thousands of people.
- gleenn 7y ago
  The Chernobyl death toll estimates have been widely criticized as wrong because of the influence of the Soviet government trying to hide the problem. Some estimate the death toll to be at least an order of magnitude higher, and the area is still uninhabitable today many decades later.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    The UN's estimate from 2005 is unlikely to have had much Soviet influence in its preparation.
    - sorenn111 7y ago
      How much data/information that the UN used was able to be influenced by the Soviet Union and its records? genuinely curious, I have no idea where the UN estimates come from nor a particular thought/agenda on the matter
- romaaeterna 7y ago
  The UN estimates for Chernobyl are based on the known bad LNT model for radiation exposure. Anything approaching 4,000 is unlikely if you apply more realistic models.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    To clarify for others - LNT refers to "Linear No Threshold", the most conservative [0] model for assessing deaths from radiation exposure. Under LNT, if some amount of radiation leads to a 1% chance of death, 1/10th that amount leads to a 0.1% chance of death. This is most likely overly conservative, as cancer rates in the states do not seem to vary with radiation exposure as would be predicted by LNT. So 4,000 is a good upper bound, if anything. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
    - romaaeterna 7y ago
      Thank you for the further explanation. However, I think that it could also be referred to as a "wildly exaggerated upper bound." Although I understand what you're saying, it's a terrible upper bound to use for risk assessments, or anything that you need to make sound engineering decisions based on. The true number of deaths from Chernobyl, outside of the actual plant fatalities, is likely closer to 0 than to 4,000.
- zping 7y ago
  The main purpose of those dams which were built right after 1949 in Huai river basin was flood control, not power generation. The dam you link, was built in 1958, but the power generators were installed almost ten years later at 1968, the electricity was just not the the priority for those dams. And it was not just one dam failure, but multiple dam failures, 62 dams in total failed in this extreme weather event, Banqiao was just the largest one, and only one with power generators at the time. After dams lost, there were constant floods in downstream areas, and almost all dams were rebuilt in 80s and 90s. The 150k-230k death toll most likely is estimate for whole flood event, not just for this dam. We can say that if the constructions of the dams or coordinates between dams were better death toll can be much lower. But if dams were not existed at all, for that level of heavy rainfall, some people at some specific locations may be alive, but for the whole basin, I don't think there will be a huge difference.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  Are those UN estimates time bound to any period of time and if not, what assumptions do they make of the future? Also, per the Wikipedia link they included following famine in the numbers killed. Is that accurate?
rukittenme 7y ago
Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as you think. One, its contained within a very small area (which increases its lethality but substantially decreases your risk of exposure). Two, some waste products decay alpha particles which are basically harmless unless consumed. Three, some waste products have short half-lives which increases their risk in the short term but substantially decreases their risk over a 500 year period. Four, most deaths from nuclear waste would be slow and probabilistic (e.g. 18% increase cancer risk for an individual with high exposure) whereas deaths from some other power source would be immediate and devastating (e.g. flood, destruction of habitat). I don't mind hydro. I don't particularly like the habitat destruction but they provide tons of clean power and tons of fresh water. But those dams have to be maintained for those 500 years. A collapse of a dam is pretty catastrophic.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  > Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as you think. That'll be great news for all the governments who haven't come up with a plain "solution" that'll definitely work for all the time it needs to work, because only God could really make sure of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m... > It is widely accepted that spent nuclear fuel and high-level reprocessing and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment. Compared to tens of thousands, 500 years sounds great. Though you do have a point in that dams are not great, either, because 500 years are a long time, too. But a risk being "probabilistic" also applies to dam accidents, since not every single last person in the wider area of it dies. I know it sucks either way, but having cared for cancer patients, I would rather drown in 5 minutes than over the course of months like one might with lung cancer.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  > One, its contained within a very small area (which increases its lethality but substantially decreases your risk of exposure). There are two cases to consider. Accident and normal waste. Accidents aren't nearly as contained. Normal waste is contained for now, but what about long term? We are looking at time length longer than any government has been stable. >Two, some waste products decay alpha particles which are basically harmless unless consumed. ...some... Also, what vectors could these particles enter into food when you consider their lifespan? >Three, some waste products have short half-lives which increases their risk in the short term but substantially decreases their risk over a 500 year period. But to what extent are these the ones being pushed for? >Four, most deaths from nuclear waste would be slow and probabilistic (e.g. 18% increase cancer risk for an individual with high exposure) whereas deaths from some other power source would be immediate and devastating (e.g. flood, destruction of habitat). Are we really suggesting that the death isn't comparable because it is a long term probabilistic? Imagine if some company dumping sludge into drinking water was making the same argument. Would we find it acceptable?

ceejayoz 7y ago

The UN estimates (https://www.un.org/press/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm https://www.un.org/press/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm) 4,000 deaths total for Chernobyl. The EPA estimates zero deaths for Three Mile Island. The worst dam failure in history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam) killed somewhere between 150,000 and 230,000 people. Hydro has a big head start.

koheripbal 7y ago
Chernobyl is so different from a modern reactor, that it's not really useful to judge to current risks with existing reactors, let alone planned new Gen III+ reactors which are orders of magnitudes safer.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  In fairness, the same is probably true for dams, as well - we've gotten a lot better at engineering them.
  - geggam 7y ago
    Recent California flooding makes me question this.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Yea, people talk about not being able to fully predict nuclear disasters, then turn around and claim sun, rain, and wind are totally predictive enough to rely on. I get that the risks vary, but man, a lot of people really don't understand statistics and probability.
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      And in particular the recent near-failure of the dam in Oroville. That could've significantly impacted hundreds of thousands of people.
gleenn 7y ago
The Chernobyl death toll estimates have been widely criticized as wrong because of the influence of the Soviet government trying to hide the problem. Some estimate the death toll to be at least an order of magnitude higher, and the area is still uninhabitable today many decades later.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The UN's estimate from 2005 is unlikely to have had much Soviet influence in its preparation.
  - sorenn111 7y ago
    How much data/information that the UN used was able to be influenced by the Soviet Union and its records? genuinely curious, I have no idea where the UN estimates come from nor a particular thought/agenda on the matter
romaaeterna 7y ago
The UN estimates for Chernobyl are based on the known bad LNT model for radiation exposure. Anything approaching 4,000 is unlikely if you apply more realistic models.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  To clarify for others - LNT refers to "Linear No Threshold", the most conservative [0] model for assessing deaths from radiation exposure. Under LNT, if some amount of radiation leads to a 1% chance of death, 1/10th that amount leads to a 0.1% chance of death. This is most likely overly conservative, as cancer rates in the states do not seem to vary with radiation exposure as would be predicted by LNT. So 4,000 is a good upper bound, if anything. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
  - romaaeterna 7y ago
    Thank you for the further explanation. However, I think that it could also be referred to as a "wildly exaggerated upper bound." Although I understand what you're saying, it's a terrible upper bound to use for risk assessments, or anything that you need to make sound engineering decisions based on. The true number of deaths from Chernobyl, outside of the actual plant fatalities, is likely closer to 0 than to 4,000.
zping 7y ago
The main purpose of those dams which were built right after 1949 in Huai river basin was flood control, not power generation. The dam you link, was built in 1958, but the power generators were installed almost ten years later at 1968, the electricity was just not the the priority for those dams. And it was not just one dam failure, but multiple dam failures, 62 dams in total failed in this extreme weather event, Banqiao was just the largest one, and only one with power generators at the time. After dams lost, there were constant floods in downstream areas, and almost all dams were rebuilt in 80s and 90s. The 150k-230k death toll most likely is estimate for whole flood event, not just for this dam. We can say that if the constructions of the dams or coordinates between dams were better death toll can be much lower. But if dams were not existed at all, for that level of heavy rainfall, some people at some specific locations may be alive, but for the whole basin, I don't think there will be a huge difference.
SkyBelow 7y ago
Are those UN estimates time bound to any period of time and if not, what assumptions do they make of the future? Also, per the Wikipedia link they included following famine in the numbers killed. Is that accurate?

rukittenme 7y ago

Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as you think. One, its contained within a very small area (which increases its lethality but substantially decreases your risk of exposure). Two, some waste products decay alpha particles which are basically harmless unless consumed. Three, some waste products have short half-lives which increases their risk in the short term but substantially decreases their risk over a 500 year period. Four, most deaths from nuclear waste would be slow and probabilistic (e.g. 18% increase cancer risk for an individual with high exposure) whereas deaths from some other power source would be immediate and devastating (e.g. flood, destruction of habitat). I don't mind hydro. I don't particularly like the habitat destruction but they provide tons of clean power and tons of fresh water. But those dams have to be maintained for those 500 years. A collapse of a dam is pretty catastrophic.

PavlovsCat 7y ago
> Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as you think. That'll be great news for all the governments who haven't come up with a plain "solution" that'll definitely work for all the time it needs to work, because only God could really make sure of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m... > It is widely accepted that spent nuclear fuel and high-level reprocessing and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment. Compared to tens of thousands, 500 years sounds great. Though you do have a point in that dams are not great, either, because 500 years are a long time, too. But a risk being "probabilistic" also applies to dam accidents, since not every single last person in the wider area of it dies. I know it sucks either way, but having cared for cancer patients, I would rather drown in 5 minutes than over the course of months like one might with lung cancer.
SkyBelow 7y ago
> One, its contained within a very small area (which increases its lethality but substantially decreases your risk of exposure). There are two cases to consider. Accident and normal waste. Accidents aren't nearly as contained. Normal waste is contained for now, but what about long term? We are looking at time length longer than any government has been stable. >Two, some waste products decay alpha particles which are basically harmless unless consumed. ...some... Also, what vectors could these particles enter into food when you consider their lifespan? >Three, some waste products have short half-lives which increases their risk in the short term but substantially decreases their risk over a 500 year period. But to what extent are these the ones being pushed for? >Four, most deaths from nuclear waste would be slow and probabilistic (e.g. 18% increase cancer risk for an individual with high exposure) whereas deaths from some other power source would be immediate and devastating (e.g. flood, destruction of habitat). Are we really suggesting that the death isn't comparable because it is a long term probabilistic? Imagine if some company dumping sludge into drinking water was making the same argument. Would we find it acceptable?