5 ms·
Let us see how long it takes for HN to start praising nuclear power and shrug of any risks in this thread! :)
by domano 5y ago
Let us see how long it takes for HN to start praising nuclear power and shrug of any risks in this thread! :)
- yosito 5y agoSince you brought it up, no, Chernobyl is not a good example of the risks of modern nuclear technology.
- bombcar 5y agoChernobyl is a good "line in the sand" to develop the safety precautions around (for example, assume Chernobyl happens, what things prevent long-lasting harm).
- hedora 5y agoThat’s like assuming the manager of your grocery store will kill everyone with an automatic rifle, then designing the building for easy cleanup. We know how to build safe nuclear plants. We should do that, and also make sure there’s enough independent oversight to make sure they’re not being managed by people actively trying to melt them down.
- beached_whale 5y agoBecause one person purposely drives off a cliff, following orders, we ban biking. Despite its usefulness and that the situation was contrived. Right There are a lot of ways governments can harm the environment on purpose using tools that are generally helpful.
- IntelMiner 5y agoNuclear power is so unsafe, ugh! I mean if it weren't for... - Designing and building reactor that is demonstrably and knowingly unsafe by its own creators and other scientists - Building it in the cash starved near collapse Soviet Union in a satellite state - Having technicians carry out tests that are known to be unsafe for the sake of it - Lying and attempt to cover up the issue because your entire power structure is all about saving face What am I saying? Of course Chernobyl would've still happened! I'm not particularly invested in if nuclear power is good or bad but holding up Chernobyl as a snarky "watch as the nerds ignore THIS!" is a herring so unimaginably red that it beggars belief
- rriepe 5y agoWhat's changed about bureaucracy and decision-making in government that makes it safe now? Should only collapse-proof nations build nuclear plants? If it looks like a collapse is coming, should they decommission them early? I get the better tech arguments-- those are solid. But this idea that they were dumb and we're smart is, I guarantee you, the same exact idea they had at Chernobyl. The whole reason they wanted to save face so much is because the whole thing was built on that idea.
- hedora 5y agoBy all accounts, the person running Chernobyl was a complete idiot. They disabled multiple safeties (including ones that would have averted the meltdown), then tried to make it output more than it was rated for (directly leading to the meltdown). The same could be said for Boeing, etc., but that doesn’t mean we need to abandon air travel. We just need better leadership in safety critical organizations.
- shawnz 5y agoIs it better if those corrupt bureaucracies use coal instead, thus necessitating the consumption and handling of around 1000000x as much fuel?
- Chris2048 5y ago> this idea that they were dumb and we're smart The cold war suggests Russia is anything but dumb. And as those bullets demonstrate, they where smart enough to know better - but the problem with the Soviet Union was not that it collapsed (or was unstable), but that it wasn't transparent - it cared more about the image of functionality than actual functionality.
- lm28469 5y agoIt's safer than most of the alternatives yes, and it works better than the safer alternatives https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- 0xdba 5y agoIf we're going to judge nuclear by its few accidents and not overall safety for the past 70 years compared to, say, mining coal, sure.
- nottorp 5y agoCoal miners tend to die later when they're retired (at least in more modern times), it's not so visible as to create fear. And people directly affected by coal smoke pollution aren't even counted. Again, this doesn't create enough fear. Same for airplane accidents vs car accidents.
- GuB-42 5y agoIt would be like saying that hydro is bad because of the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure, an accident way worse than Chernobyl by most metrics. Like all energy sources, there are risks and there are solutions to mitigate these risks. And I don't know any sane proponent of nuclear energy that think that we should ignore the lessons learned.