7 ms·

> Nuclear power is the safest form of energy production out there (and by far). Only on average. The potential worst case fuckup is the most spectacular compar

by 05 6y ago

> Nuclear power is the safest form of energy production out there (and by far). Only on average. The potential worst case fuckup is the most spectacular compared to any other energy source.

joncrane 6y ago
Yes, and this is a perception issue. Most people don't understand statistics.
joss82 6y ago
Not at all. Dams failures are WAY worse in terms of deaths.
- interestica 6y ago
  A battle of worst case scenarios. For science.
- xxpor 6y ago
  At least with a dam you can see the where the danger is after it fails :\
nickik 6y ago
The biggest coal, gas and dam failures were all pretty bad and often on a level with nuclear. The 'worst case' with a modern reactor is basically zero to very few people die and there is some leaked out radiation. This is what happened in Fukushima. Its hard to find a worse case with a modern reactor.
beefield 6y ago
I do not know what you have in mind, but to my understanding Chernobyl was pretty much as bad as it can get. And the other energy sources... Well, if we are allowed to stretch our imagination on the potential worst case, I start thinking about fossile fuels, greenhouse gas effect and Venus. Or maybe genetically modified energy crops that break ecosystems...
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  No - Chernobyl would have been much worse if the people on the ground hadn’t stopped the meltdown. The miners? The divers? What do you think those sacrifices were about?
derivagral 6y ago
Somehow stuff like Centralia[0] always skips the mind when comparing Chernobyl to coal. Nuclear isn't the only source with long-lasting, damaging effects. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire
ekianjo 6y ago
> The potential worst case fuckup is the most spectacular compared to any other energy source. Just like plane crashes make for horrific headlines. Meantime, a lot more people die every year driving their car to work, and nobody talks about it. Your point is, we don't know how to grasp data?

by 05 6y ago

> Nuclear power is the safest form of energy production out there (and by far). Only on average. The potential worst case fuckup is the most spectacular compared to any other energy source.

joncrane 6y ago

Yes, and this is a perception issue. Most people don't understand statistics.

joss82 6y ago

Not at all. Dams failures are WAY worse in terms of deaths.

interestica 6y ago
A battle of worst case scenarios. For science.
xxpor 6y ago
At least with a dam you can see the where the danger is after it fails :\

nickik 6y ago

The biggest coal, gas and dam failures were all pretty bad and often on a level with nuclear. The 'worst case' with a modern reactor is basically zero to very few people die and there is some leaked out radiation. This is what happened in Fukushima. Its hard to find a worse case with a modern reactor.

beefield 6y ago

I do not know what you have in mind, but to my understanding Chernobyl was pretty much as bad as it can get. And the other energy sources... Well, if we are allowed to stretch our imagination on the potential worst case, I start thinking about fossile fuels, greenhouse gas effect and Venus. Or maybe genetically modified energy crops that break ecosystems...

Schiendelman 6y ago
No - Chernobyl would have been much worse if the people on the ground hadn’t stopped the meltdown. The miners? The divers? What do you think those sacrifices were about?

derivagral 6y ago

Somehow stuff like Centralia[0] always skips the mind when comparing Chernobyl to coal. Nuclear isn't the only source with long-lasting, damaging effects. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire

ekianjo 6y ago

> The potential worst case fuckup is the most spectacular compared to any other energy source. Just like plane crashes make for horrific headlines. Meantime, a lot more people die every year driving their car to work, and nobody talks about it. Your point is, we don't know how to grasp data?