4 ms·

Go back to the first day and read the comments on HN about how everything is perfectly fine, and nothing bad can possibly happen to these reactors. That was bli

by jshen 16y ago

Go back to the first day and read the comments on HN about how everything is perfectly fine, and nothing bad can possibly happen to these reactors. That was blind faith that turned out to be wrong. Those people, instead of becoming more reasoned after being wrong, continue to make bold claims about how all future reactors will be perfectly safe. These are ideological thoughts, not reasoned thoughts. That's what I mean by 'rabid'

tptacek 16y ago
Can you please be specific about the things you believe have gone spectacularly wrong? I can see why you think people are getting "more rabid"; you might think, for instance, that they've been shown to be wrong by the events at Fukushima. What you're not taking into account is the notion that the people you're debating may have taken all of this into account --- in fact, like me, they may have been bracing for far worse outcomes, such as hundreds of casualties --- and still be capable of reasoning through a comparison with the damage caused by fossil fuels. Documented casualties directly linked to the production of energy with fossil fuels simply dwarfs that of nuclear power, and probably will for as long as fossil fuel remains in common use. And that is to say nothing of the indirect but fairly obvious casualties to the developing world of lack of electrical infrastructure. Simple diseases such as dysentary, which can be mitigated in part by electrical infrastructure, take HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES A YEAR.
- jshen 16y ago
  You seem to believe that I think we shouldn't use nuclear. What I'm saying is that bad arguments and ideological blinders from some people on the pro nuclear side is not helping the case for nuclear power. On the first day when they say things like, "these reactors have a containment dome and there is no way for it to get out of the containment dome", then it does in fact get out of the containment dome, it discredits those people. When those people then claim that science is on their side, and I'm a luddite or something ... it's annoying. You can't treat this like a football game where you're on the pro nuclear side and everyone else that is pro nuclear is on your team.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    That's a fair critique. I probably am polarizing this discussion, and I'm sorry for that. But the points you're making are straightforward to knock down: fossil fuel power generation, which has a worse track record than nuclear, is also deployed and maintained by commercial interests; and, "front loaded" or not, fossil fuels are doing more damage to the planet. Those aren't random things I brought up; they're responses to arguments you've made.
    - jshen 16y ago
      This is the 'rabid' I'm talking about. I have never once said that fossil fuels are safer than nuclear. You however insist on projecting that view onto me, and arguing with a strawman. Why? Because I've asked some questions and pointed out one flaw I think exist in a commonly used argument for nuclear power. If someone like me is trying to make sense of this stuff by participating in a discussion and asking questions, someone like you comes along and decides that I'm on the opposite side of some fight from you. Despite the fact that I'm not. I'm on neither side, and am trying to reason about these issues, and I found one argument unconvincing. Now I'm your enemy apparently, and you're "knocking down" my points, which I don't even have.

by jshen 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

Can you please be specific about the things you believe have gone spectacularly wrong? I can see why you think people are getting "more rabid"; you might think, for instance, that they've been shown to be wrong by the events at Fukushima. What you're not taking into account is the notion that the people you're debating may have taken all of this into account --- in fact, like me, they may have been bracing for far worse outcomes, such as hundreds of casualties --- and still be capable of reasoning through a comparison with the damage caused by fossil fuels. Documented casualties directly linked to the production of energy with fossil fuels simply dwarfs that of nuclear power, and probably will for as long as fossil fuel remains in common use. And that is to say nothing of the indirect but fairly obvious casualties to the developing world of lack of electrical infrastructure. Simple diseases such as dysentary, which can be mitigated in part by electrical infrastructure, take HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES A YEAR.

jshen 16y ago
You seem to believe that I think we shouldn't use nuclear. What I'm saying is that bad arguments and ideological blinders from some people on the pro nuclear side is not helping the case for nuclear power. On the first day when they say things like, "these reactors have a containment dome and there is no way for it to get out of the containment dome", then it does in fact get out of the containment dome, it discredits those people. When those people then claim that science is on their side, and I'm a luddite or something ... it's annoying. You can't treat this like a football game where you're on the pro nuclear side and everyone else that is pro nuclear is on your team.
- tptacek 16y ago
  That's a fair critique. I probably am polarizing this discussion, and I'm sorry for that. But the points you're making are straightforward to knock down: fossil fuel power generation, which has a worse track record than nuclear, is also deployed and maintained by commercial interests; and, "front loaded" or not, fossil fuels are doing more damage to the planet. Those aren't random things I brought up; they're responses to arguments you've made.
  - jshen 16y ago
    This is the 'rabid' I'm talking about. I have never once said that fossil fuels are safer than nuclear. You however insist on projecting that view onto me, and arguing with a strawman. Why? Because I've asked some questions and pointed out one flaw I think exist in a commonly used argument for nuclear power. If someone like me is trying to make sense of this stuff by participating in a discussion and asking questions, someone like you comes along and decides that I'm on the opposite side of some fight from you. Despite the fact that I'm not. I'm on neither side, and am trying to reason about these issues, and I found one argument unconvincing. Now I'm your enemy apparently, and you're "knocking down" my points, which I don't even have.