36 ms·

Bringing up coal when people start bitching about nuclear is no different from bringing up car accidents when people start bitching about flying. Danger is rel

Bringing up coal when people start bitching about nuclear is no different from bringing up car accidents when people start bitching about flying. Danger is relative, and relative to the rest of the power industry, nuclear is absurdly safe.

danenania 16y ago
This just means that the bar is set very low. Any method of producing power that harms large numbers of people deserves serious scrutiny. We shouldn't be discouraging it, we should be calling for more!
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  NOBODY is saying that we shouldn't learn from the past when it comes to nuclear power. However, sensationalists such as yourself, claiming shit like "Nuclear power is inherently UNSAFE. It takes a lot of hubris to claim otherwise." are not adding to rational discussion, but rather detracting from it. The only thing people like you accomplish is preventing modern reactor designs from being implemented, therefore effectively discouraging improvement in the industry.
  - danenania 16y ago
    Every design was once a modern design. Nuclear power is inherently unsafe. That's why we're having this discussion.
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      And bloodletting was once modern medicine. You're so full of shit, it's unbelievable.
      - nitrogen 16y ago
        Come now, there's no need to get personal.
    - henrikschroder 16y ago
      What you fail to understand is that everything is unsafe, there's a risk attached to all forms of power generation, nothing is 100% safe. You are handwaving when it comes to the dangers of coal power, and screaming at the top of your lungs when it comes to nuclear power, despite the fact that coal power kills people every year, despite the fact that coal power plants actually emit radioactive particles in the air, and nuclear plants normally don't. The point is that most forms of power generation we have, today, is less safe and causes more environmental impact than nuclear power. And yet you are upset about nuclear power? You are not being rational, you are sensationalist.
    - Turing_Machine 16y ago
      Claiming something doesn't make it so, not even if you do it repeatedly and use lots of italics. It's not really a "discussion" when you're just saying the same thing over and over, without addressing the data presented by others or providing any data of your own.
      - danenania 16y ago
        That's because none of the data posted is relevant to my point. I'm arguing that it is extremely unethical to subject people and the environment to any significant risk of nuclear disaster. When the risk is such that multiple incidents are all but guaranteed over a long time period (like 50 or 100 years), we are effectively agreeing to the principle that productivity and efficiency are greater concerns than some hundreds or thousands or millions of lives (we can't predict the number) and worth destroying and sacrificing those lives in exchange for. I reject this principle, as any sane person should. I believe coal energy should be evaluated on the same basis. The reason to focus on nuclear over coal power and other bad industrial practices is that nuclear still has a lot of support among educated people. Coal has been discredited. No one thinks we should build more coal plants (aside from those who profit from them). But the amount of cheerleading you see for nuclear among a population like HN's is incredible. I don't know if it's a testament to the industry's financial weight or what, but it's clearly getting a pass where other harmful industries are not. That's bad.
varjag 16y ago
6% of nuclear power plants had radiation-releasing incidents INES 4 or bigger. Chernobyl and Fukushima alone comprise about 2% of NPPs worldwide. There must be some creative statistics at works behind those safety figures.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  deaths/TerraWatt. Such dastardly statistical trickery!
  - varjag 16y ago
    There is a big difference if you count Chernobyl deaths as 28 or as 4500.

danenania 16y ago

This just means that the bar is set very low. Any method of producing power that harms large numbers of people deserves serious scrutiny. We shouldn't be discouraging it, we should be calling for more!

burgerbrain 16y ago
NOBODY is saying that we shouldn't learn from the past when it comes to nuclear power. However, sensationalists such as yourself, claiming shit like "Nuclear power is inherently UNSAFE. It takes a lot of hubris to claim otherwise." are not adding to rational discussion, but rather detracting from it. The only thing people like you accomplish is preventing modern reactor designs from being implemented, therefore effectively discouraging improvement in the industry.
- danenania 16y ago
  Every design was once a modern design. Nuclear power is inherently unsafe. That's why we're having this discussion.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    And bloodletting was once modern medicine. You're so full of shit, it's unbelievable.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      Come now, there's no need to get personal.
  - henrikschroder 16y ago
    What you fail to understand is that everything is unsafe, there's a risk attached to all forms of power generation, nothing is 100% safe. You are handwaving when it comes to the dangers of coal power, and screaming at the top of your lungs when it comes to nuclear power, despite the fact that coal power kills people every year, despite the fact that coal power plants actually emit radioactive particles in the air, and nuclear plants normally don't. The point is that most forms of power generation we have, today, is less safe and causes more environmental impact than nuclear power. And yet you are upset about nuclear power? You are not being rational, you are sensationalist.
  - Turing_Machine 16y ago
    Claiming something doesn't make it so, not even if you do it repeatedly and use lots of italics. It's not really a "discussion" when you're just saying the same thing over and over, without addressing the data presented by others or providing any data of your own.
    - danenania 16y ago
      That's because none of the data posted is relevant to my point. I'm arguing that it is extremely unethical to subject people and the environment to any significant risk of nuclear disaster. When the risk is such that multiple incidents are all but guaranteed over a long time period (like 50 or 100 years), we are effectively agreeing to the principle that productivity and efficiency are greater concerns than some hundreds or thousands or millions of lives (we can't predict the number) and worth destroying and sacrificing those lives in exchange for. I reject this principle, as any sane person should. I believe coal energy should be evaluated on the same basis. The reason to focus on nuclear over coal power and other bad industrial practices is that nuclear still has a lot of support among educated people. Coal has been discredited. No one thinks we should build more coal plants (aside from those who profit from them). But the amount of cheerleading you see for nuclear among a population like HN's is incredible. I don't know if it's a testament to the industry's financial weight or what, but it's clearly getting a pass where other harmful industries are not. That's bad.

varjag 16y ago

6% of nuclear power plants had radiation-releasing incidents INES 4 or bigger. Chernobyl and Fukushima alone comprise about 2% of NPPs worldwide. There must be some creative statistics at works behind those safety figures.

burgerbrain 16y ago
deaths/TerraWatt. Such dastardly statistical trickery!
- varjag 16y ago
  There is a big difference if you count Chernobyl deaths as 28 or as 4500.