6 ms·

I'm not calling our history the best case, it's a bad case, but it's not the worst case. Nuclear is completely safe in the best-case scenario. Nuclear is safe

I'm not calling our history the best case, it's a bad case, but it's not the worst case. Nuclear is completely safe in the best-case scenario. Nuclear is safe if nothing goes wrong, if the weather is fine, if the people follow the protocols, if nothing unforeseen occurs. If one of those things isn't true, we get Chernobyl, or Fukushima, or perhaps next time, instead of being "not that bad", or "pretty bad", it's worse, because of something we didn't foresee, and we regret it for the rest of human history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents#Lists_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and... It's not like we've only had one or two incidents with one or two technologies. I think we're not ready, yet.

mlyle 7y ago
> > Lowest death toll in the best-case scenario, > I'm not calling our history the best case, it's a bad case, but it's not the worst case. Well, in our "bad case" it's still orders of magnitude better than the alternatives... > it's worse, because of something we didn't foresee, and we regret it for the rest of human history. Or this is hyperbole, because nuclear plants just aren't that scary in potential worst case harms. You have less harm in 70 years than one typical year of coal power does-- perhaps less than one typical month of coal power inflicts. Also I don't think your list is fair: counting deliberately nuking places, mining accidents, and radiotherapy accidents. Again, while nuclear is scary-- it at least is self-limiting. There's plenty of shit we do with chemicals and industrial processes that could be bad forever.
tapland 7y ago
> I think we're not ready, yet. With your list of fears, we never will be. If climate scares are true, we're actually doomed if we are to avoid nuclear. I'm OK with increasing risk more than plenty, way above coal deaths, if it prevents a larger crisis for society. But we really aren't with nuclear.

mlyle 7y ago

> > Lowest death toll in the best-case scenario, > I'm not calling our history the best case, it's a bad case, but it's not the worst case. Well, in our "bad case" it's still orders of magnitude better than the alternatives... > it's worse, because of something we didn't foresee, and we regret it for the rest of human history. Or this is hyperbole, because nuclear plants just aren't that scary in potential worst case harms. You have less harm in 70 years than one typical year of coal power does-- perhaps less than one typical month of coal power inflicts. Also I don't think your list is fair: counting deliberately nuking places, mining accidents, and radiotherapy accidents. Again, while nuclear is scary-- it at least is self-limiting. There's plenty of shit we do with chemicals and industrial processes that could be bad forever.

tapland 7y ago

> I think we're not ready, yet. With your list of fears, we never will be. If climate scares are true, we're actually doomed if we are to avoid nuclear. I'm OK with increasing risk more than plenty, way above coal deaths, if it prevents a larger crisis for society. But we really aren't with nuclear.