3 ms·

Exactly, the bottom line is were playing with nuclear reactions and hoping everything goes as planned. It's arrogance.

lurch_mojoff 16y ago
As is every technological and scientific achievement humankind has ever reached and is relying upon. Replace nuclear reactions with, say, human flight and your statement remains just as valid. I don't see many people crying out for abolishment of planes, though.
- moe 16y ago
  I don't see many people crying out for abolishment of planes, though. I think there's a tiny difference between a plane falling out of the sky and a nuclear reactor melting down. I'm sure you can spot it, too, if you think long and hard.
  - NickPollard 16y ago
    The plane falling happens a lot more often?
    - moe 16y ago
      Are you serious? According to [1] roughly 15k people died in plane accidents over the past decade. It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that Chernobyl killed many more than that. Furthermore a nuke meltdown renders a large area uninhabitable and leaves an economic footprint "slightly" bigger than a few planes coming down every year. Quote from [2] (page 33): Coping with the impact of the disaster has placed a huge burden on national budgets. In Ukraine, 5–7 percent of government spending each year is still devoted to Chernobyl-related benefits and programmes. In Belarus, government spending on Chernobyl amounted to 22.3 percent of the national budget in 1991, declining gradually to 6.1 percent in 2002. Total spending by Belarus on Chernobyl between 1991 and 2003 is estimated at more than US $13 billion. Other Quote (same page): Belarus, for instance, has estimated the losses over 30 years at US $235 billion. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents#Aircraft_Crashes_Record_Office_.28ACRO.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incident... [2] http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernoby...
      - NickPollard 16y ago
        Yes, I am serious. I said the plane falling happens more often, not that it is worse as a singular event. Unfortunately it is a problem with human psychology that we respond more strongly to a singular large event than to consistent low-level events. Some of the discussion on this page has suggested Chernobyl killed around 60k, directly and indirectly. Certainly a tragedy, and a huge one at that, but it is also the only major nuclear disaster. The second worst (until we fully understand the current Japanese incident at least) remains Three-mile island, where there are no confirmed deaths I am aware of. So, we're comparing approx 60k deaths, over the course of approximately 60 years, which works out as about 10k deaths a decade, against aviation accidents of, as you said yourself, approximately 15k a decade. By those numbers, approximately 50% more people die each year from aviation accidents than from nuclear-power-related injuries. It's just that Chernobyl is a big story, but we hear about plane crashes all the time.
        moe 16y ago
        Unfortunately it is a problem with human psychology that we respond more strongly to a singular large event than to consistent low-level events. I agree with that in general, although my opinion on this particular comparison differs. we're comparing approx 60k deaths, over the course of approximately 60 years Sorry to be nitpicking, but I'm not sure where the 60 years are coming from. However, since there's no hard data to rely on I'll even concede that plane accidents may have accounted for the same or slightly more "directly related" deaths in the same timeframe. But: This is only a single datapoint. And a relatively "lucky" one. The surrounding area around Chernobyl was sparsely populated and quickly evacuated. This is not representative for the locations of the majority of nuke plants, and certainly not for the Fukushima area. If we imagine a worst-case scenario in Japan, with Tokyo right around the corner, then the second data-point could already change the equation in a drastic way. This is why I think analogies to plane-crashes or traffic-accidents are invalid.
        NickPollard 16y ago
        60 years is approximately how long we've had nuclear power for, I believe.
- bioh42_2 16y ago
  I don't see many people crying out for abolishment of planes, though. But a lot of people, especially those who know anything about planes are always crying out for more safety. Both in mechanical terms, more plane inspections, and in human terms, more rest for pilots. And I don't think many people here are arguing for the abolishment of nuclear power. That is a straw man. I think what we all want is the safest possible nuclear power. And this argument is between the people who willing admit knowing little to nothing and think things can always get worse, versus the people who keep arguing things are peachy and there's no way they can get worse, even as the situation has continued to deteriorate. I think this boils down to an argument of "Shit happens!" vs. "Nah uh, engineering is magic!"

As is every technological and scientific achievement humankind has ever reached and is relying upon. Replace nuclear reactions with, say, human flight and your statement remains just as valid. I don't see many people crying out for abolishment of planes, though.

moe 16y ago
I don't see many people crying out for abolishment of planes, though. I think there's a tiny difference between a plane falling out of the sky and a nuclear reactor melting down. I'm sure you can spot it, too, if you think long and hard.
- NickPollard 16y ago
  The plane falling happens a lot more often?
  - moe 16y ago
    Are you serious? According to [1] roughly 15k people died in plane accidents over the past decade. It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that Chernobyl killed many more than that. Furthermore a nuke meltdown renders a large area uninhabitable and leaves an economic footprint "slightly" bigger than a few planes coming down every year. Quote from [2] (page 33): Coping with the impact of the disaster has placed a huge burden on national budgets. In Ukraine, 5–7 percent of government spending each year is still devoted to Chernobyl-related benefits and programmes. In Belarus, government spending on Chernobyl amounted to 22.3 percent of the national budget in 1991, declining gradually to 6.1 percent in 2002. Total spending by Belarus on Chernobyl between 1991 and 2003 is estimated at more than US $13 billion. Other Quote (same page): Belarus, for instance, has estimated the losses over 30 years at US $235 billion. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents#Aircraft_Crashes_Record_Office_.28ACRO.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incident... [2] http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernoby...
    - NickPollard 16y ago
      Yes, I am serious. I said the plane falling happens more often, not that it is worse as a singular event. Unfortunately it is a problem with human psychology that we respond more strongly to a singular large event than to consistent low-level events. Some of the discussion on this page has suggested Chernobyl killed around 60k, directly and indirectly. Certainly a tragedy, and a huge one at that, but it is also the only major nuclear disaster. The second worst (until we fully understand the current Japanese incident at least) remains Three-mile island, where there are no confirmed deaths I am aware of. So, we're comparing approx 60k deaths, over the course of approximately 60 years, which works out as about 10k deaths a decade, against aviation accidents of, as you said yourself, approximately 15k a decade. By those numbers, approximately 50% more people die each year from aviation accidents than from nuclear-power-related injuries. It's just that Chernobyl is a big story, but we hear about plane crashes all the time.
      - moe 16y ago
        Unfortunately it is a problem with human psychology that we respond more strongly to a singular large event than to consistent low-level events. I agree with that in general, although my opinion on this particular comparison differs. we're comparing approx 60k deaths, over the course of approximately 60 years Sorry to be nitpicking, but I'm not sure where the 60 years are coming from. However, since there's no hard data to rely on I'll even concede that plane accidents may have accounted for the same or slightly more "directly related" deaths in the same timeframe. But: This is only a single datapoint. And a relatively "lucky" one. The surrounding area around Chernobyl was sparsely populated and quickly evacuated. This is not representative for the locations of the majority of nuke plants, and certainly not for the Fukushima area. If we imagine a worst-case scenario in Japan, with Tokyo right around the corner, then the second data-point could already change the equation in a drastic way. This is why I think analogies to plane-crashes or traffic-accidents are invalid.
        NickPollard 16y ago
        60 years is approximately how long we've had nuclear power for, I believe.
bioh42_2 16y ago
I don't see many people crying out for abolishment of planes, though. But a lot of people, especially those who know anything about planes are always crying out for more safety. Both in mechanical terms, more plane inspections, and in human terms, more rest for pilots. And I don't think many people here are arguing for the abolishment of nuclear power. That is a straw man. I think what we all want is the safest possible nuclear power. And this argument is between the people who willing admit knowing little to nothing and think things can always get worse, versus the people who keep arguing things are peachy and there's no way they can get worse, even as the situation has continued to deteriorate. I think this boils down to an argument of "Shit happens!" vs. "Nah uh, engineering is magic!"