3 ms·

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. There's definitely more tech-savvy on HN than many other places, but there's also a certain element of desire to find innovati

by jka 6y ago

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. There's definitely more tech-savvy on HN than many other places, but there's also a certain element of desire to find innovative and exciting solutions, especially when they alter or disrupt some existing industry. Simultaneously - and partly thanks to that skew - I think this is an influential forum and the likelihood for discussions and radical ideas that are shared here to shape real-world policy is outsized. I also agree that experts will understand the safety properties of their field better than anyone else. The risk is the skip-level that HN introduces. Rather than those experts informing policy decision-making directly, we have an easy, accessible, open (all beneficial properties in themselves) forum where decision-makers-and-influers could cherry-pick technology tangents they like the sound of, and likely find rational-sounding support for them. As someone who is risk-averse (which includes optimism that society can collectively steer away from the worst effects of climate change, and also avoid future populations being left to deal with the problems of long-term nuclear waste under world conditions that we can't yet predict), and someone who believes that cost, simplicity and reduction of negative externalities are positive indicators, renewables seem like the way to go, and so I think it's worth keeping that line of argument present. You're correct that I shouldn't assume that any of the discussion is industry-led; an assumption that it's genuine technology interest is fair. It can be hard to determine where (and if) the distinction exists when the stakes are high.

godelski 6y ago
To quench your concerns a bit, I should mention that the reason nuclear has such a high safety record is because it is one of the most regulated industries, as it should be. When we consider radiation dosage levels, safe is magnitudes below what we've measured to be dangerous. Most of us that have worked in or adjacent to this technology are actually happy with this. There is real improvement that needs to be made in regulation though, because there is such a thing as too cautious (i.e. making a small reactor have the same insurance liability as a large reactor. Another example I've seen is "Hey, we did all the sims and testing, x method is better and safer and cheaper" and get responds back "x is untested in practice, we will keep doing y because it is proven." So the industry is a bit slow moving). But there are many that aren't in the industry that do not understand the nuances are try to push more. But I assure you that they don't have the ears of regulators. These are the people screaming about Thorium on Reddit that don't know a proton from an alpha particle. Every scientist I know in the field is much more risk adverse than I see in other fields. Quite frankly, for good reason. The reason for the "knows the most, fears the least" comment is because after you've studied this stuff for years, seen safety practices, understand the levels of added safety, you realize that accidents are difficult because so much thought has gone into preventing them. So armchair scientists are saying "why don't we advance like we do in other tech" but actual scientists are saying "Hey, it is time we use the decades of simulation science and knowledge in practice." The difference is subtle, but distinct. You'll find that scientists are different from your average software engineer. I want to also say that if I see the industry moving away from its high safety principles I will gladly fight against it.

by jka 6y ago

godelski 6y ago

To quench your concerns a bit, I should mention that the reason nuclear has such a high safety record is because it is one of the most regulated industries, as it should be. When we consider radiation dosage levels, safe is magnitudes below what we've measured to be dangerous. Most of us that have worked in or adjacent to this technology are actually happy with this. There is real improvement that needs to be made in regulation though, because there is such a thing as too cautious (i.e. making a small reactor have the same insurance liability as a large reactor. Another example I've seen is "Hey, we did all the sims and testing, x method is better and safer and cheaper" and get responds back "x is untested in practice, we will keep doing y because it is proven." So the industry is a bit slow moving). But there are many that aren't in the industry that do not understand the nuances are try to push more. But I assure you that they don't have the ears of regulators. These are the people screaming about Thorium on Reddit that don't know a proton from an alpha particle. Every scientist I know in the field is much more risk adverse than I see in other fields. Quite frankly, for good reason. The reason for the "knows the most, fears the least" comment is because after you've studied this stuff for years, seen safety practices, understand the levels of added safety, you realize that accidents are difficult because so much thought has gone into preventing them. So armchair scientists are saying "why don't we advance like we do in other tech" but actual scientists are saying "Hey, it is time we use the decades of simulation science and knowledge in practice." The difference is subtle, but distinct. You'll find that scientists are different from your average software engineer. I want to also say that if I see the industry moving away from its high safety principles I will gladly fight against it.