5 ms·

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

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-...

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-...