6 ms·

Perhaps if the war hawks had allowed for the development of nuclear reactors with passive safety mechanisms- rather than exclusively funding R&D on those with w

by yarg 7y ago

Perhaps if the war hawks had allowed for the development of nuclear reactors with passive safety mechanisms- rather than exclusively funding R&D on those with weaponisable byproducts, we'd have globally usable nuclear energy technology today. Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a genuine and justified cause for concern (as evidenced by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima).

EGreg 7y ago
Not to mention that stuxnet proved that we can quickly go from “look at all this desalinated water and zero carbon footprint!” to “crap, we just built tons of honeypots for state level hackers to hold our entire population hostage to the threat of nuclear meltdown triggered by sabotaged software”
- yarg 7y ago
  That's not actually what a honeypot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(computing)) is.
  - EGreg 7y ago
    That's in computing. And it's close enough. We would probably HAVE honeypots to deter exactly this.
arcticbull 7y ago
> Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a genuine and justified cause for concern (as evidenced by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima). Fear of nuclear is irrational. Chernobyl was the single worst nuclear accident in the history of the world and UNSCEAR projects a death toll of no more than 4,000 [3] from the original accident (which directly killed about 50) onward. A large amount of them are suicide by people who fear they were “contaminated” when the most likely cancer, thyroid (due to radioactive Iodine-131 released) has a 98% survival rate [4]. Better than some flu years. That's what they were taking iodine pills for -- to saturate the thyroid so it didn't take up any of the Iodine-131. Three mile island killed nobody and Fukushima killed 2-12 (almost 600 died from the actual quake). We learned from all 3 incidents and incorporated substantial additional safety measures for future designs. The worst hydro accident by comparison, the Bangqiao Dam failure killed 230,000 people instantly. [2] Nuclear has an order of magnitude fewer deaths per TWh than solar (it’s 10X safer than solar panels, yes) and two to three orders fewer than hydro and coal. [1]. Nuclear is no question the safest and most environmentally friendly energy source in the world by all metrics, and especially carbon emissions. Of course I’d love to see thorium cycle explored too but we'll never get the funding with negative sentiment towards nuclear. It should be respected, not feared. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/d... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_dis... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyroid_cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyroid_cancer
- Aperocky 7y ago
  But what about perceptions! People’s perception are what counts in a democracy, not the objective fact.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Your perceptions change when you receive new facts, shouldn't they?
- nstart 7y ago
  Those are some interesting facts. I've generally been on the side that nuclear is not safe because I don't trust governments to build things safely if nuclear ever became mainstream. I'd expect multiple bidders to show up, some corrupt under the table deal happens, politicians takes a massive cut for themselves, project runs under budget, over time, and the infrastructure built gets dumped onto an area close to areas with higher rates of poverty, and what's built constantly has leaks or contamination of the environment around it due to structural errors. That said, my confirmation bias never led me to consider how the situation could play out similarly for any other form of energy. So thanks for articulating those facts so clearly.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Nobody wants to be the elected official who irradiated their constituency, which cuts both ways. That means very little nuclear gets built, and what does get built is super safe -- and very expensive.
    - nstart 7y ago
      > Nobody wants to be the elected official who irradiated their constituency Ummm... I wish it were that straightforward but I can't be confident of that. Power doesn't balance out as much as we'd like it to. There are a lot of elected officials who are ok with doing as bad to their constituency and they get away with it fine. And by get away that might mean they don't get another term but they take their money and go live a life of leisure. No jail time, nothing of major consequence. And usually they'll keep playing the political corruption game using the connections built up. (Eg: bringing in "preferred investors" for a "commission") Reality around political power is ugly af :(

by yarg 7y ago

EGreg 7y ago

Not to mention that stuxnet proved that we can quickly go from “look at all this desalinated water and zero carbon footprint!” to “crap, we just built tons of honeypots for state level hackers to hold our entire population hostage to the threat of nuclear meltdown triggered by sabotaged software”

yarg 7y ago
That's not actually what a honeypot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(computing)) is.
- EGreg 7y ago
  That's in computing. And it's close enough. We would probably HAVE honeypots to deter exactly this.

arcticbull 7y ago

> Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a genuine and justified cause for concern (as evidenced by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima). Fear of nuclear is irrational. Chernobyl was the single worst nuclear accident in the history of the world and UNSCEAR projects a death toll of no more than 4,000 [3] from the original accident (which directly killed about 50) onward. A large amount of them are suicide by people who fear they were “contaminated” when the most likely cancer, thyroid (due to radioactive Iodine-131 released) has a 98% survival rate [4]. Better than some flu years. That's what they were taking iodine pills for -- to saturate the thyroid so it didn't take up any of the Iodine-131. Three mile island killed nobody and Fukushima killed 2-12 (almost 600 died from the actual quake). We learned from all 3 incidents and incorporated substantial additional safety measures for future designs. The worst hydro accident by comparison, the Bangqiao Dam failure killed 230,000 people instantly. [2] Nuclear has an order of magnitude fewer deaths per TWh than solar (it’s 10X safer than solar panels, yes) and two to three orders fewer than hydro and coal. [1]. Nuclear is no question the safest and most environmentally friendly energy source in the world by all metrics, and especially carbon emissions. Of course I’d love to see thorium cycle explored too but we'll never get the funding with negative sentiment towards nuclear. It should be respected, not feared. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/d... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_dis... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyroid_cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyroid_cancer

Aperocky 7y ago
But what about perceptions! People’s perception are what counts in a democracy, not the objective fact.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Your perceptions change when you receive new facts, shouldn't they?
nstart 7y ago
Those are some interesting facts. I've generally been on the side that nuclear is not safe because I don't trust governments to build things safely if nuclear ever became mainstream. I'd expect multiple bidders to show up, some corrupt under the table deal happens, politicians takes a massive cut for themselves, project runs under budget, over time, and the infrastructure built gets dumped onto an area close to areas with higher rates of poverty, and what's built constantly has leaks or contamination of the environment around it due to structural errors. That said, my confirmation bias never led me to consider how the situation could play out similarly for any other form of energy. So thanks for articulating those facts so clearly.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Nobody wants to be the elected official who irradiated their constituency, which cuts both ways. That means very little nuclear gets built, and what does get built is super safe -- and very expensive.
  - nstart 7y ago
    > Nobody wants to be the elected official who irradiated their constituency Ummm... I wish it were that straightforward but I can't be confident of that. Power doesn't balance out as much as we'd like it to. There are a lot of elected officials who are ok with doing as bad to their constituency and they get away with it fine. And by get away that might mean they don't get another term but they take their money and go live a life of leisure. No jail time, nothing of major consequence. And usually they'll keep playing the political corruption game using the connections built up. (Eg: bringing in "preferred investors" for a "commission") Reality around political power is ugly af :(