3 ms·

I'd pick the occasional localized radioactive hazard over global destruction caused by anthropogenic climate change. That is if we even had such disasters agai

I'd pick the occasional localized radioactive hazard over global destruction caused by anthropogenic climate change. That is if we even had such disasters again with current generation nuclear tech.

tyronehed 6y ago
Considering the amount of concrete the goes into making a nuclear reactor, nuclear power is not a solution to our climate crisis.
- thinkcontext 6y ago
  No, nuclear has much better Energy Return on Investment (EROI) than any other energy source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment Don't get me wrong, it has other problems but EROI ain't one of them.
hinkley 6y ago
Have you seen how much radiation from Fukushima has sailed out to sea? It's bad. I really think we need to ban building heavy industry next to bodies of water or high in critical watersheds. We have enough transit infrastructure now that we should be looking at the precautionary principle when zoning for things that can get a free ride on the wind or waterways and therefore spread over heavily populated or critical nature corridors just due to inability to stop a problem the moment it is detected. It's designed for making a company's biggest mistakes into everybody's problem instead of theirs.
- lucb1e 6y ago
  > Have you seen how much radiation from Fukushima has sailed out to sea? Actually, Wikipedia tells me they've resumed fishing the sea next to Fukushima as of three years ago > In February 2018, Japan renewed the export of fish caught off Fukushima's nearshore zone. According to prefecture officials, no seafood had been found with radiation levels exceeding Japan safety standards since April 2015. And looking at a graph, it looks even less bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#/media/File:Fukushima_I_Seawater_Contamination_Caesium-137.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... Seawater contamination seems to be back to safe levels two months later. I'm no expert on seawater contamination or anything, perhaps it's the case that the two big nuclear disasters known to mankind had a combined effect on sea life greater than the fossil fuel plants and dams for hydro. But then please do make that argument rather than a vague exclamation about "have you seen how much".
  - hinkley 6y ago
    You're talking about Fukushima harbor. I'm talking about the rest of us: https://whalesandmarinefauna.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/nuclear-cloud-fukushima.jpg https://whalesandmarinefauna.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/nuc... https://earthsky.org/earth/tracking-fukushima-radiation-across-the-pacific https://earthsky.org/earth/tracking-fukushima-radiation-acro... When your externalities are global I don't think people really care quite so much about what happens to the locals. Cesium ends up substituting for potassium, which means you ingest it and then have to worry about alpha decay. [edit: although it seems the two isotopes are beta decay, but it's still being digested]
arkitaip 6y ago
Go live in fukushima's radioactive zone for a couple of months and then be so glib about nuclear disasters.
- unhingingdog 6y ago
  You'd get about a 1 mSv dose, and be fine. I'm more worried about the 200,000 or so daily premature deaths due to fossil fuel pollution.
- lucb1e 6y ago
  Go live in an airplane crash for a couple of months and then let's talk again about whether we should continue to operate them? Or is the exhaust of a coal plant -- oh wait, that's worldwide, you're already more likely to get all sorts of stuff from air pollution -- a better comparison? This line of reasoning makes no sense to me.

I'd pick the occasional localized radioactive hazard over global destruction caused by anthropogenic climate change. That is if we even had such disasters again with current generation nuclear tech.

tyronehed 6y ago

Considering the amount of concrete the goes into making a nuclear reactor, nuclear power is not a solution to our climate crisis.

thinkcontext 6y ago
No, nuclear has much better Energy Return on Investment (EROI) than any other energy source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment Don't get me wrong, it has other problems but EROI ain't one of them.

hinkley 6y ago

Have you seen how much radiation from Fukushima has sailed out to sea? It's bad. I really think we need to ban building heavy industry next to bodies of water or high in critical watersheds. We have enough transit infrastructure now that we should be looking at the precautionary principle when zoning for things that can get a free ride on the wind or waterways and therefore spread over heavily populated or critical nature corridors just due to inability to stop a problem the moment it is detected. It's designed for making a company's biggest mistakes into everybody's problem instead of theirs.

lucb1e 6y ago
> Have you seen how much radiation from Fukushima has sailed out to sea? Actually, Wikipedia tells me they've resumed fishing the sea next to Fukushima as of three years ago > In February 2018, Japan renewed the export of fish caught off Fukushima's nearshore zone. According to prefecture officials, no seafood had been found with radiation levels exceeding Japan safety standards since April 2015. And looking at a graph, it looks even less bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#/media/File:Fukushima_I_Seawater_Contamination_Caesium-137.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... Seawater contamination seems to be back to safe levels two months later. I'm no expert on seawater contamination or anything, perhaps it's the case that the two big nuclear disasters known to mankind had a combined effect on sea life greater than the fossil fuel plants and dams for hydro. But then please do make that argument rather than a vague exclamation about "have you seen how much".
- hinkley 6y ago
  You're talking about Fukushima harbor. I'm talking about the rest of us: https://whalesandmarinefauna.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/nuclear-cloud-fukushima.jpg https://whalesandmarinefauna.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/nuc... https://earthsky.org/earth/tracking-fukushima-radiation-across-the-pacific https://earthsky.org/earth/tracking-fukushima-radiation-acro... When your externalities are global I don't think people really care quite so much about what happens to the locals. Cesium ends up substituting for potassium, which means you ingest it and then have to worry about alpha decay. [edit: although it seems the two isotopes are beta decay, but it's still being digested]

arkitaip 6y ago

Go live in fukushima's radioactive zone for a couple of months and then be so glib about nuclear disasters.

unhingingdog 6y ago
You'd get about a 1 mSv dose, and be fine. I'm more worried about the 200,000 or so daily premature deaths due to fossil fuel pollution.
lucb1e 6y ago
Go live in an airplane crash for a couple of months and then let's talk again about whether we should continue to operate them? Or is the exhaust of a coal plant -- oh wait, that's worldwide, you're already more likely to get all sorts of stuff from air pollution -- a better comparison? This line of reasoning makes no sense to me.