3 ms·

The numbers I'm using incorporate the UN UNSCEARs estimate of long term cancers due to Chernobyl. These are factored in. In fact, building a straight-up Cherno

The numbers I'm using incorporate the UN UNSCEARs estimate of long term cancers due to Chernobyl. These are factored in. In fact, building a straight-up Chernobyl reactor that runs for 5 years and then explodes is still safer than running a regular old coal plant for 5 years. Fossil is that bad.

kragen 7y ago
The concern about farmland contamination is not because people are farming around Pripyat and getting cancer. On the contrary, it's because people are not farming around Pripyat. Deaths per terajoule doesn't factor in the loss of the farmland. I think you're probably right that, even with frequent meltdowns, nuclear power would be less bad than coal. But I also think that we don't have a large enough number of disasters to extrapolate reliably. A hundred Chernobyls might produce much more than a hundred times the deaths from one Chernobyl — or much less.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Well we just had a triple-meltdown at Fukushima where the plants actually had containment domes. Estimated deaths from radiation integrated over all time? Up to 1. The difference between nuclear's safety and fossil fuels anti-safety is astounding. They are not even remotely comparable. 4 million deaths per year from fossil, year after year. Up to 4000 total deaths across the decades from nuclear. Fossil fuels are causing over 2 long-term cancer-included Chernobyls per day every single day right now. This is an important point that's hard to get through to people.
  - craftinator 7y ago
    Sounds like fossil is really helping to prevent overpopulation.
jyounker 7y ago
People's emotional reaction to nuclear plants isn't about long term safety, it's about the failure mode. When a nuclear plant fails catastrophically it becomes a long-term area denial weapon. At a statistical level, I'm willing to bet that driving a car is probably much more dangerous than living near either a nuclear plant or a fossil fuel plant, but we still do it. The problem with nuclear power is, unlike fossil fuel plant or cars, an accident takes your home, your daily social connections, and your daily life. It turns you and your family and friends into refugees.
- pjc50 7y ago
  It's not impossible for fossil accidents to be that bad; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buncefield_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buncefield_fire are the ones from the UK I remember, but the biggest may be the huge poisioning of the Bhopal disaster which is technically more the chemical industry's fault. But the big shadow behind nuclear is weapons proliferation. From the 60s onwards nuclear bombs brought the possibility that there might be a civilisation-destroying nuclear exchange, and as the discourse around Iran has shown it's quite difficult for bystanders to distinguish between the two.
- keanzu 7y ago
  Something else is at the root of nuclear fear. There have been much more serious renewable accidents. Banqiao Hydroelectric Dam, China, was breached Aug. 8 1975 killing more than 85,000 people that day. A study conducted by eight Chinese water science experts who probably had access to censored government reports, estimated the number of total dead — from flooding and the resulting epidemics and famine — at 230,000. https://www.ozy.com/flashback/230000-died-in-a-dam-collapse-that-china-kept-secret-for-years/91699/ https://www.ozy.com/flashback/230000-died-in-a-dam-collapse-...

kragen 7y ago

The concern about farmland contamination is not because people are farming around Pripyat and getting cancer. On the contrary, it's because people are not farming around Pripyat. Deaths per terajoule doesn't factor in the loss of the farmland. I think you're probably right that, even with frequent meltdowns, nuclear power would be less bad than coal. But I also think that we don't have a large enough number of disasters to extrapolate reliably. A hundred Chernobyls might produce much more than a hundred times the deaths from one Chernobyl — or much less.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Well we just had a triple-meltdown at Fukushima where the plants actually had containment domes. Estimated deaths from radiation integrated over all time? Up to 1. The difference between nuclear's safety and fossil fuels anti-safety is astounding. They are not even remotely comparable. 4 million deaths per year from fossil, year after year. Up to 4000 total deaths across the decades from nuclear. Fossil fuels are causing over 2 long-term cancer-included Chernobyls per day every single day right now. This is an important point that's hard to get through to people.
- craftinator 7y ago
  Sounds like fossil is really helping to prevent overpopulation.

jyounker 7y ago

People's emotional reaction to nuclear plants isn't about long term safety, it's about the failure mode. When a nuclear plant fails catastrophically it becomes a long-term area denial weapon. At a statistical level, I'm willing to bet that driving a car is probably much more dangerous than living near either a nuclear plant or a fossil fuel plant, but we still do it. The problem with nuclear power is, unlike fossil fuel plant or cars, an accident takes your home, your daily social connections, and your daily life. It turns you and your family and friends into refugees.

pjc50 7y ago
It's not impossible for fossil accidents to be that bad; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buncefield_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buncefield_fire are the ones from the UK I remember, but the biggest may be the huge poisioning of the Bhopal disaster which is technically more the chemical industry's fault. But the big shadow behind nuclear is weapons proliferation. From the 60s onwards nuclear bombs brought the possibility that there might be a civilisation-destroying nuclear exchange, and as the discourse around Iran has shown it's quite difficult for bystanders to distinguish between the two.
keanzu 7y ago
Something else is at the root of nuclear fear. There have been much more serious renewable accidents. Banqiao Hydroelectric Dam, China, was breached Aug. 8 1975 killing more than 85,000 people that day. A study conducted by eight Chinese water science experts who probably had access to censored government reports, estimated the number of total dead — from flooding and the resulting epidemics and famine — at 230,000. https://www.ozy.com/flashback/230000-died-in-a-dam-collapse-that-china-kept-secret-for-years/91699/ https://www.ozy.com/flashback/230000-died-in-a-dam-collapse-...