5 ms·

Fear has a way of disarming logic.

by Meandering 6y ago

pvorb 6y ago
I don't think it's unreasonable to fear nuclear accidents, as history has shown us.
- ajmadesc 6y ago
  It is unreasonable. We over weigh the risk based on the exposure an accident gets, not the death toll . History shows the highest kwh per human life of any energy source.
  - pvorb 6y ago
    But there's more to it than the death toll. If something goes bad this would turn a large area into a wasteland, that will be uninhabitable for thousands of years. And how would you prevent future civilizations from opening nuclear waste deposits that should not be opened? I think it's just too complex and we should look for simpler alternives.
    - Baeocystin 6y ago
      >And how would you prevent future civilizations from opening nuclear waste deposits that should not be opened? A depot where the waste is beats the heck out what we're doing now, which is spewing waste directly into the atmosphere, which effects everywhere.
      - pvorb 6y ago
        That's a valid point. Power from fossil fuels is not better. Accidents happen far more often (tankers sinking and spilling millions of liters of oil into the sea), but somehow people seem to fear fossil fuel energy a lot less.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      When has any of this happened? How many did Fukushima kill? Meanwhile fossil fuels kill millions every year and are slowly changing the habitability of the entire globe. I like the idea that somehow a civilization thousands of years in the future will not be advanced enough to have radioactivity meters, yet we should worry more about a couple of people in this far future dying because they dug into deeply buried radioactive storage instead of getting eaten by wolves as would be more common for those future hunter gatherers.
    - p_l 6y ago
      You start by reprocessing it. By the time anyone forgets and reopens what's left after extensive reprocessing, it will be probably barely above background radiation - French nuclear waste iirc has shorter timeframe to becoming harmless than the ongoing efforts to cleanup WW1 battlefields.
      - everybodyknows 6y ago
        >French nuclear waste iirc has shorter timeframe to becoming harmless ... Would like to see a link for this. Here in the US, waste continues to be shuffled around in "short-term" storage containers long past their design lifetime, on a shoestring budget: https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2019/08/12/scandals-at-san-onofre-nuclear-generating-station-put-public-at-risk/ https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2019/08/12/scandals-at-s...
    - lixtra 6y ago
      > large area into a wasteland, that will be uninhabitable for thousands of years Did you see what happened to the Chernobyl area? What you get is not wastelands but a wonderful nature reserve (with a for wildlife insignificant increase in cancer rate) that no human dares to permanently invade. For the ones that love nature over humans (that have to resettle and suffer from the exposure) it’s not a bad outcome.
    - pvorb 6y ago
      Btw, the latter problem led to some interesting research since the eighties, e.g. "Communication Measures to Bridge Ten Millennia" https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6705990 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6705990
- campl3r 6y ago
  Which history?
  - pvorb 6y ago
    Chernobyl, Fukushima, and a long list of smaller accidents: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accide...
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      I'm not sure Fukushima was at all problematic. Most People are confused as hell because there was massive tsunami damage and it all got subconsciously jumbled together.
      - pvorb 6y ago
        It was rated a 7 (major accident) by the IAEA. The only other incident with that rating was Chernobyl.
- Meandering 6y ago
  Of course it isn't. The issue is that the majority of fear against nuclear comes from nuclear weapons and improper management. People have erroneously thought that nuclear power technology is similar to nuclear weapon technology when they meltdown. The reality is that a meltdown isn't even close to a nuclear chain reaction. Chernobyl was an example of poor management and Fukushima was an example of poor design. These failures were not do to nuclear material. Nuclear material is obviously dangerous when used improperly. The fear of 'fallout' has stunted the growth of a superior technology. I believe we would have made a far more significant change to C02 output if society had invested money and effort into nuclear technology instead of renewable technology. Not that I'm anti-renewable but, MSR and other nuclear technologies have the potential to be far more reliable, cost effective, and environmentally beneficial in the long run.
  - pvorb 6y ago
    > The issue is that the majority of fear against nuclear comes from nuclear weapons and improper management. But aren't these valid sources of fear? War is still a thing and Uranium enrichment can be used for both nuclear power plants as well as nuclear weapons. Improper management is something that is hard to control. Usually the people who live nearby a nuclear power plant have absolutely no insight into how the plant is managed. So why should they be confident in everything being fine. Human error is inevitable and has led to numerous accidents. Why shouldn't this happen again?
    - Meandering 6y ago
      Absolutely, healthy fear is beyond valid. It's the fear from ignorance that I was referencing. A nuclear meltdown is not an explosion. It's literal a meltdown where the material burns through containment... there is no explosion. The fear of nuclear has prevented investment which could of resulted in far safer technologies entering the market. Technologies like Molten Salt Reactors that have passive meltdown protection[1] and thorium reactors[2] which utilized a material that can't be weaponized through enrichment. A passive safety feature in the Fukushima plant could have prevented that catastrophe. People have a right to not approve of nuclear. I'm only saying that the technology is heavily repressed due to an uneducated public. The truth is that renewable energy will never be as cost effective as gas or oil for base load energy. Nuclear is a clear and viable option for the energy portfolio. It's a shame to see a completely valid option ignored because of unchecked fear. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

Fear has a way of disarming logic.

pvorb 6y ago

I don't think it's unreasonable to fear nuclear accidents, as history has shown us.

ajmadesc 6y ago
It is unreasonable. We over weigh the risk based on the exposure an accident gets, not the death toll . History shows the highest kwh per human life of any energy source.
- pvorb 6y ago
  But there's more to it than the death toll. If something goes bad this would turn a large area into a wasteland, that will be uninhabitable for thousands of years. And how would you prevent future civilizations from opening nuclear waste deposits that should not be opened? I think it's just too complex and we should look for simpler alternives.
  - Baeocystin 6y ago
    >And how would you prevent future civilizations from opening nuclear waste deposits that should not be opened? A depot where the waste is beats the heck out what we're doing now, which is spewing waste directly into the atmosphere, which effects everywhere.
    - pvorb 6y ago
      That's a valid point. Power from fossil fuels is not better. Accidents happen far more often (tankers sinking and spilling millions of liters of oil into the sea), but somehow people seem to fear fossil fuel energy a lot less.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    When has any of this happened? How many did Fukushima kill? Meanwhile fossil fuels kill millions every year and are slowly changing the habitability of the entire globe. I like the idea that somehow a civilization thousands of years in the future will not be advanced enough to have radioactivity meters, yet we should worry more about a couple of people in this far future dying because they dug into deeply buried radioactive storage instead of getting eaten by wolves as would be more common for those future hunter gatherers.
  - p_l 6y ago
    You start by reprocessing it. By the time anyone forgets and reopens what's left after extensive reprocessing, it will be probably barely above background radiation - French nuclear waste iirc has shorter timeframe to becoming harmless than the ongoing efforts to cleanup WW1 battlefields.
    - everybodyknows 6y ago
      >French nuclear waste iirc has shorter timeframe to becoming harmless ... Would like to see a link for this. Here in the US, waste continues to be shuffled around in "short-term" storage containers long past their design lifetime, on a shoestring budget: https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2019/08/12/scandals-at-san-onofre-nuclear-generating-station-put-public-at-risk/ https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2019/08/12/scandals-at-s...
  - lixtra 6y ago
    > large area into a wasteland, that will be uninhabitable for thousands of years Did you see what happened to the Chernobyl area? What you get is not wastelands but a wonderful nature reserve (with a for wildlife insignificant increase in cancer rate) that no human dares to permanently invade. For the ones that love nature over humans (that have to resettle and suffer from the exposure) it’s not a bad outcome.
  - pvorb 6y ago
    Btw, the latter problem led to some interesting research since the eighties, e.g. "Communication Measures to Bridge Ten Millennia" https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6705990 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6705990
campl3r 6y ago
Which history?
- pvorb 6y ago
  Chernobyl, Fukushima, and a long list of smaller accidents: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accide...
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    I'm not sure Fukushima was at all problematic. Most People are confused as hell because there was massive tsunami damage and it all got subconsciously jumbled together.
    - pvorb 6y ago
      It was rated a 7 (major accident) by the IAEA. The only other incident with that rating was Chernobyl.
Meandering 6y ago
Of course it isn't. The issue is that the majority of fear against nuclear comes from nuclear weapons and improper management. People have erroneously thought that nuclear power technology is similar to nuclear weapon technology when they meltdown. The reality is that a meltdown isn't even close to a nuclear chain reaction. Chernobyl was an example of poor management and Fukushima was an example of poor design. These failures were not do to nuclear material. Nuclear material is obviously dangerous when used improperly. The fear of 'fallout' has stunted the growth of a superior technology. I believe we would have made a far more significant change to C02 output if society had invested money and effort into nuclear technology instead of renewable technology. Not that I'm anti-renewable but, MSR and other nuclear technologies have the potential to be far more reliable, cost effective, and environmentally beneficial in the long run.
- pvorb 6y ago
  > The issue is that the majority of fear against nuclear comes from nuclear weapons and improper management. But aren't these valid sources of fear? War is still a thing and Uranium enrichment can be used for both nuclear power plants as well as nuclear weapons. Improper management is something that is hard to control. Usually the people who live nearby a nuclear power plant have absolutely no insight into how the plant is managed. So why should they be confident in everything being fine. Human error is inevitable and has led to numerous accidents. Why shouldn't this happen again?
  - Meandering 6y ago
    Absolutely, healthy fear is beyond valid. It's the fear from ignorance that I was referencing. A nuclear meltdown is not an explosion. It's literal a meltdown where the material burns through containment... there is no explosion. The fear of nuclear has prevented investment which could of resulted in far safer technologies entering the market. Technologies like Molten Salt Reactors that have passive meltdown protection[1] and thorium reactors[2] which utilized a material that can't be weaponized through enrichment. A passive safety feature in the Fukushima plant could have prevented that catastrophe. People have a right to not approve of nuclear. I'm only saying that the technology is heavily repressed due to an uneducated public. The truth is that renewable energy will never be as cost effective as gas or oil for base load energy. Nuclear is a clear and viable option for the energy portfolio. It's a shame to see a completely valid option ignored because of unchecked fear. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power