3 ms·

But this is entirely a fault in human thinking that we should strive to overcome.

• coldtea 7y ago
  I don't think. It's an entirely rational calculation. Absolute death counts are not the be all end all... Spread over time, spread over incident, etc, are all things to also consider.
  • hoseja 7y ago
    But why? The only difference I see is that one is less shocking to humans, makes worse news headlines.
    • coldtea 7y ago
      For the same reason regular cars that kill e.g. 1 in 10,000 in accidents (as we know them), are more acceptable than a design that might be far more safe individually, but when in the (far more seldom case) one blows up, it kills everybody in its 2km periphery. Even if the total death count is the same (or even if its less for the new design), the widespread small scale pattern is more acceptable than sudden mayhem. For one, you could just not get in a car, and avoid recklessly crossing the street in the first case, and you'll be fine. In the other case, in the off chance of a new-car blowing up, it can destroy your whole 5-10 block periphery. I wouldn't accept that...
      • icebraining 7y ago
        > For one, you could just not get in a car Yeah, but what's the coal plant equivalent? You can try to avoid living near nuclear plants as well.
        • coldtea 7y ago
          >Yeah, but what's the coal plant equivalent? You can try to avoid living near nuclear plants as well And then the wind blows in this or that direction, after an accident, and your 1000 mile away "safe" place gets all kinds of radiation....
    • tomatocracy 7y ago
      At least in part I think it’s because everyone dies eventually but we tell ourselves that we live on through our family and community and we also rely on family and community to support those left behind when death happens; so (all other things being equal) we care significantly more about children dying than old people even where both are preventable, and we also care more about mass deaths which affect a single community very acutely than mass deaths spread out across many communities. We also think about causes in quite different ways again precisely because everyone dies eventually. Shortening of life is ‘less bad’ than preventable death which is ‘less bad’ than deliberate killing. For nuclear disasters you can then layer on an element of irrational fear of the unknown and lack of control which sets it apart - the horror of ‘this thing I don’t understand might kill us all in a few days and we can’t stop it’.
      • coldtea 7y ago
        >For nuclear disasters you can then layer on an element of irrational fear of the unknown and lack of control which sets it apart - the horror of ‘this thing I don’t understand might kill us all in a few days and we can’t stop it’. Doesn't sound irrational to fear more something that you don't know how it will spread and who/when will kill -- which could even vary by how the winds go on the day of the accident, etc. Sounds like a legitimate reason to fear something more -- an unpredictable killer is more fearsome that a more predictable one, which you can at least try to come up with a plan to avoid more easily...
        • tomatocracy 7y ago
          I was thinking specifically here about people in North-Western Europe and the UK who panicked when the Chernobyl accident first came to light and thought they'd be dead within days. To my mind, that was indeed pretty irrational. It's also an interesting contrast to what I've read about the attitude of the people who actually lived in Pripyat at the time who were arguably irrationally calm.
• beerandt 7y ago
  Exactly. We should be just as ok with occasional Nuclear accident deaths as we are with accumulated car deaths.