22 ms·

For the love of god..."make nuclear power safe"? There have been...what, three nuclear plant failures EVER? Ignoring Chernobyl (which was caused by political

by dstorrs 16y ago

For the love of god..."make nuclear power safe"? There have been...what, three nuclear plant failures EVER? Ignoring Chernobyl (which was caused by political pressure on the operators of one of the earliest plants ever built) there have been a few hundred deaths attributable to nuclear energy. Compare that on a GW / fatality basis to coal mines, hydro plants, etc, and nuclear power is clearly the safest option around. As to Fukushima...the fifth most powerful earthquake ever recorded went off a few dozen miles away with a total energy release of something like 600 million Hiroshima bombs. This caused tidal waves up to 30 feet high that rolled almost halfway around the world. Despite all that, the total effect was a thermal explosion and some radioactive steam was vented. Yes, it's bad, but it's hardly a good reason to give up the best and safest form of energy known.

cma 16y ago
You left out plutonium in the ground soil indicating a possible partial meltdown. Since,as you point out, there are only 3 failure datapoints, waiting to see how this one plays out could shed significant light on nuclear safety.
morrow 16y ago
I think similarly to planes and automobiles, people over-value emotional, anecdotal evidence over scientific, verifiable evidence by a large margin when it comes to unfamiliar events. As much as you are more likely to die on the way to the airport, it's easier to visualize dying horrifically in a plane crash than in the car, as one is much rarer and harder to understand than one which you ride in every day without issue. I think the solution to this could be to incentivize tolerance of nuclear power (maybe tax breaks to live within N miles of one), and educate those unaware of the difference, until it becomes familiar to people.
- c1sc0 16y ago
  This. Policies invented to cater to the random irrational fears of the public are going to do us in.
- semanticist 16y ago
  I suspect that if you paid people to live near a nuclear power station it would produce the opposite effect to the one you're hoping for. After all, if nuclear power was so safe, why do they have to pay people to live near the station? (Etc, etc.)
Adam503 16y ago
You don't get to say x is safe if x has had an accident that took many years off the lives of half a million people. All human beings make mistakes. Nuclear reactors do not tolerate mistakes.

by dstorrs 16y ago

cma 16y ago

You left out plutonium in the ground soil indicating a possible partial meltdown. Since,as you point out, there are only 3 failure datapoints, waiting to see how this one plays out could shed significant light on nuclear safety.

morrow 16y ago

I think similarly to planes and automobiles, people over-value emotional, anecdotal evidence over scientific, verifiable evidence by a large margin when it comes to unfamiliar events. As much as you are more likely to die on the way to the airport, it's easier to visualize dying horrifically in a plane crash than in the car, as one is much rarer and harder to understand than one which you ride in every day without issue. I think the solution to this could be to incentivize tolerance of nuclear power (maybe tax breaks to live within N miles of one), and educate those unaware of the difference, until it becomes familiar to people.

c1sc0 16y ago
This. Policies invented to cater to the random irrational fears of the public are going to do us in.
semanticist 16y ago
I suspect that if you paid people to live near a nuclear power station it would produce the opposite effect to the one you're hoping for. After all, if nuclear power was so safe, why do they have to pay people to live near the station? (Etc, etc.)

Adam503 16y ago

You don't get to say x is safe if x has had an accident that took many years off the lives of half a million people. All human beings make mistakes. Nuclear reactors do not tolerate mistakes.