4 ms·

"or could have had" And that sums up most opposition to nuclear right there. Fear of what maybe might could happen.

by krupan 6y ago

TameAntelope 6y ago
Oh for sure, but I guess my overarching point that I think us pro-nuclear people need to keep in mind is that it only takes one, and that (possibly irrationally) scares people.
- Aachen 6y ago
  I think everyone is well aware that it takes only one disaster to paint a picture, no matter whether it's still possible today, proportional to deaths caused by other energy sources, or otherwise based on misinformation and emotional reasons. This is exactly the fallacy everyone should be arguing against. Yes, also people who think nuclear is a bad option for other (rational) reasons. Otherwise you're lying about your motivations and pushing a different point under false pretenses.
pvaldes 6y ago
When "what maybe could have happened but didn't, ha-haa!" is making half of European continent uninhabitable for several generations in 1986... fear is fully justified. Our brain evolved the capability to explore hypothetical undesirable outcomes and feel fear of it to keep us alive, and it serves us well since millions of years. The fools that never are afraid of anything tend to have very short lives.
- Aachen 6y ago
  > making half of European continent uninhabitable In what remotely plausible scenario would that have happened? Feel free to involve the USSR, reactor safety of the time, etc. Because from what I know, the fallout was definitely not making anything nearly that large "uninhabitable". Deaths would go up, but so did they from the coal plants that were subsequently built (we're at 3 million deaths a year, if memory serves; that's the number you have to beat to make nuclear less attractive than coal from a more sciency perspective than "what maybe could have happened but didn't, ha-haa!").
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > In what remotely plausible scenario would that have happened? If all people would just have run and quit the area letting the reaction finish. > we're at 3 million deaths a year Lets assume that this number is real, the comparison would be still wrong. 1) There are much more coal plants in the planet than nuclear plants so this is like saying than a car contaminates less than 1,000 bicycles. Yes, can be true but it does not mean that replacing all bicycles by cars would reduce contamination. Replacing all coal plants by nuclear plants would increase and equilibrate really fast the death-count in both groups. Absolute numbers are useless here. 2) When talking about coal plants, the short term, middle and long term effects of contamination are included. With nuclear just the first 90 days were taken. This is a shady and dishonest way to do statistics
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

"or could have had" And that sums up most opposition to nuclear right there. Fear of what maybe might could happen.

by krupan 6y ago

"or could have had" And that sums up most opposition to nuclear right there. Fear of what maybe might could happen.

Oh for sure, but I guess my overarching point that I think us pro-nuclear people need to keep in mind is that it only takes one, and that (possibly irrationally) scares people.

Aachen 6y ago
I think everyone is well aware that it takes only one disaster to paint a picture, no matter whether it's still possible today, proportional to deaths caused by other energy sources, or otherwise based on misinformation and emotional reasons. This is exactly the fallacy everyone should be arguing against. Yes, also people who think nuclear is a bad option for other (rational) reasons. Otherwise you're lying about your motivations and pushing a different point under false pretenses.

pvaldes 6y ago

When "what maybe could have happened but didn't, ha-haa!" is making half of European continent uninhabitable for several generations in 1986... fear is fully justified. Our brain evolved the capability to explore hypothetical undesirable outcomes and feel fear of it to keep us alive, and it serves us well since millions of years. The fools that never are afraid of anything tend to have very short lives.

Aachen 6y ago
> making half of European continent uninhabitable In what remotely plausible scenario would that have happened? Feel free to involve the USSR, reactor safety of the time, etc. Because from what I know, the fallout was definitely not making anything nearly that large "uninhabitable". Deaths would go up, but so did they from the coal plants that were subsequently built (we're at 3 million deaths a year, if memory serves; that's the number you have to beat to make nuclear less attractive than coal from a more sciency perspective than "what maybe could have happened but didn't, ha-haa!").
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > In what remotely plausible scenario would that have happened? If all people would just have run and quit the area letting the reaction finish. > we're at 3 million deaths a year Lets assume that this number is real, the comparison would be still wrong. 1) There are much more coal plants in the planet than nuclear plants so this is like saying than a car contaminates less than 1,000 bicycles. Yes, can be true but it does not mean that replacing all bicycles by cars would reduce contamination. Replacing all coal plants by nuclear plants would increase and equilibrate really fast the death-count in both groups. Absolute numbers are useless here. 2) When talking about coal plants, the short term, middle and long term effects of contamination are included. With nuclear just the first 90 days were taken. This is a shady and dishonest way to do statistics

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]