11 ms·

> And its not a problem with the technology, its a problem with human beings. We're forgetful, lazy, and make mistakes. That is true. Another weakness humans h

> And its not a problem with the technology, its a problem with human beings. We're forgetful, lazy, and make mistakes. That is true. Another weakness humans have is our inability to intuit large numbers and probabilities. For example, it's hard for people to really grok that, even if you added up all the people who have died from nuclear and radiation accidents in all of history[1], including not just the sources you mentioned, but disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, it would be far less than the number of people who die from pollution caused by fossil fuels every month[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_... [2] https://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829 https://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-...

Retric 5y ago
Deaths from such accidents alone is a poor metric of comparison. Marie Curie for example isn’t on that list.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  Apart from war, what are some other sources of deaths by this type of radiation?
  - Retric 5y ago
    If you mean radiation then it gets complicated, people for example, used to use X-Rays for shoe fittings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope I have yet to see an estimate for related deaths from such ignorance.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      We've already mitigated that problem by not doing that anymore.
      - Retric 5y ago
        Sure, but if you’re planning a new thing saying we stopped doing dumb stuff in the last isn’t a great justification. The general public became scared of radiation in part because of the rapid flip flop from this stuff is safe and useful to holy shit no don’t do any of that.
        philwelch 5y ago
        > Sure, but if you’re planning a new thing saying we stopped doing dumb stuff in the last isn’t a great justification. I'm not sure that argument really works though. When it comes to radiation, we understand the dangers of radiation a lot more now than Marie Curie did, and we can argue the merits of SMR's based on the knowledge that we've gained. Furthermore, the argument is very overly general. Sure, it's true that people made a lot of mistakes because we didn't fully understand the dangers of radiation at first. But we're talking about SMR's to generate electricity here, and people didn't even fully understand the dangers of electricity at first, either. The same could be said about fossil fuels. That leads us to a much different conclusion--don't invent fundamentally new things. Radiation and fission aren't fundamentally new. They're understood, and the risks are understood.
        Retric 5y ago
        The risks of X-Rays where understood years before these where banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope For context the Radium girls won their lawsuit from 1927. By 1950 the belief was all radiation exposure resulted in increased risks, yet these things where used into the 1970’s. Hell, the nuclear industry continued to use known inherently unsafe designs. Fukushima wasn’t really a failure due to a tidal wave, it’s a failure due to requirements for active cooling. Inherently safe means turn the lights off and come back in a year and it’s fine, not everything is fine as long as you keep doing X.
- Tuna-Fish 5y ago
  Doesn't change the end result. Hell, you can add every person who died in the atomic bombings to the nuclear tally (even though that makes no sense at all), and it still won't change the result.
  - Retric 5y ago
    No, you don’t get 2.5 million deaths per year from fossil fuel usage. Though a few seriously flawed studies have gotten some very extreme numbers. For example respiratory diseases represent ~5% of all Chinese deaths or about 500,000 in 2020. Which is a horrific sign of air pollution except China also has 350 million smokers. Looking at the non smoker population you see air pollution as a major factor, but again not all air pollution is from fossil fuels. Air pollution is also associated to strokes and heart attacks, but again other factors are involved.
    - karaterobot 5y ago
      True, it is likely much higher[1], but the 2.4 million I cited comes from an older estimate that used different data. [1] https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel...
      - Retric 5y ago
        Yet here’s one saying 1.05 million. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23853-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23853-y It’s easy to find flawed studies with silly results, the underlying reality is rarely so extreme.
caddywompus 5y ago
Definitely, but those figures can't be compared directly, since deaths by air pollution are caused by industry scale deployment of both small and large power plants/generators/engines. I fail to see how [2] is related in any way to the conversation. As I said, I do believe that nuclear energy has a place in current and future energy production. The other things we humans are bad at, is implementing solutions that last decades. It is inevitable, that over a period of 30 or 50 years, there will be multiple lost small reactor installations. My case in point, is meant to be the aforementioned videos, where an extremely expensive radiotherapy machine can be neglected to the point of abandonment. What I want to highlight, is the insidious nature of a potential loss of a radioactive source. A small amount of material can contaminate a very large area relative to it's size, and its not something that can be seen or detected without equipment. And the type of damage isn't as immediate or jarring as say a runaway reaction/meltdown, it would be limited to people who unintentionally handle, or ingest particulate. For example, if you don't realize that you've been exposed to a material like this, you can carry it around on your clothes, or in to your home, and that's the real issue. You're body would be exposed to radiation over a long period of time, eventually resulting in a higher than safe dose. Any cancers/diseases as a result of this may not even be attributed to exposure, since a person may not have even realized they came into contact with it. > That is true. Another weakness humans have is our inability to intuit large numbers and probabilities. I'm not sure if this is meant to be a jab at my comment, it's not my intent to be a scare monger, but I would like to point out these past incidents to highlight the unique nature of the danger inherent to these materials.
mdorazio 5y ago
1) Please stop using fatality comparisons when talking about radiation incidents - it's disingenuous. You need to look at total impact, including negative outcomes like cancers and reduced life expectancies rather than outright deaths. 2) If your argument is "it's better than the worst alternative" then your argument is not very good. You should be comparing to power sources that are not fossil fuel-based, which is the real alternative we want to move toward
- stickfigure 5y ago
  1) Fatality statistics are the best measurement we have. Sure, there's a long tail of lesser impacts for nuclear power; there's also a long tail of disabilities and reduced life expectancies for pollution too. 2) How about "it's better than other power sources that can consistently service base load"?
  - onethought 5y ago
    Love the base load argument… if only there was a way to store electricity, we’d stop hearing these ridiculous “base load” arguments
    - hetman 5y ago
      You mean, if only there was an economically viable way to store electricity. Still waiting on that one.
      - onethought 5y ago
        Batteries. Economic viability is the next argument when you externalise the true cost (carbon).
        hetman 5y ago
        Carbon is not the only possible cost to the environment. Building batteries is not exactly easy on the planet either.
Johnny555 5y ago
For example, it's hard for people to really grok that, even if you added up all the people who have died from nuclear and radiation accidents in all of history[1], including not just the sources you mentioned, but disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, it would be far less than the number of people who die from pollution caused by fossil fuels every month That's kind of a false equivalency since fossil fuel plants are much more common than nuclear plants (nuclear generates ~10% of the world's electrical power), and they tend to be highly regulated and maintained, and run by first world nations. But if nuclear was as ubiquitous as fossil fuel plants, it would also be run by poorer nations with less ability to maintain them. So you can't really compare nuclear plants that exist today with what we'd see if nuclear were as common as fossil fuel plants.
- foxyv 5y ago
  Nuclear power currently makes up 20% of US electrical power. Fossil fuels are 60% of grid electricity. Multiply by 3 and you are there in the US. France is at 70% so they are already there. I don't see any significant deaths from nuclear power there. I agree that nuclear isn't currently a great solution for stuff like trucks and planes. However for baseline power generation it is one of the best low carbon energy solutions when taking into account storage costs to provide constant power from intermittent sources like wind and solar.
lamontcg 5y ago
The biggest problem with nuclear is that its too expensive. And that's before factoring in the $187B cost of cleaning up Fukushima. The "but nobody died" argument doesn't matter. You're still arguing with Jane Fonda in 1979. You need be arguing with economists in 2021.
forgotmypw17 5y ago
>even if you added up all the people who have died from nuclear and radiation accidents in all of history The whole area for hundreds of kilometers around Chernobyl is now polluted, for decades and centuries to come. This affects everyone in that area, don't let statistics fool you. EVERYONE.

Retric 5y ago

Deaths from such accidents alone is a poor metric of comparison. Marie Curie for example isn’t on that list.

karaterobot 5y ago
Apart from war, what are some other sources of deaths by this type of radiation?
- Retric 5y ago
  If you mean radiation then it gets complicated, people for example, used to use X-Rays for shoe fittings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope I have yet to see an estimate for related deaths from such ignorance.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    We've already mitigated that problem by not doing that anymore.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Sure, but if you’re planning a new thing saying we stopped doing dumb stuff in the last isn’t a great justification. The general public became scared of radiation in part because of the rapid flip flop from this stuff is safe and useful to holy shit no don’t do any of that.
      - philwelch 5y ago
        > Sure, but if you’re planning a new thing saying we stopped doing dumb stuff in the last isn’t a great justification. I'm not sure that argument really works though. When it comes to radiation, we understand the dangers of radiation a lot more now than Marie Curie did, and we can argue the merits of SMR's based on the knowledge that we've gained. Furthermore, the argument is very overly general. Sure, it's true that people made a lot of mistakes because we didn't fully understand the dangers of radiation at first. But we're talking about SMR's to generate electricity here, and people didn't even fully understand the dangers of electricity at first, either. The same could be said about fossil fuels. That leads us to a much different conclusion--don't invent fundamentally new things. Radiation and fission aren't fundamentally new. They're understood, and the risks are understood.
        Retric 5y ago
        The risks of X-Rays where understood years before these where banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope For context the Radium girls won their lawsuit from 1927. By 1950 the belief was all radiation exposure resulted in increased risks, yet these things where used into the 1970’s. Hell, the nuclear industry continued to use known inherently unsafe designs. Fukushima wasn’t really a failure due to a tidal wave, it’s a failure due to requirements for active cooling. Inherently safe means turn the lights off and come back in a year and it’s fine, not everything is fine as long as you keep doing X.
Tuna-Fish 5y ago
Doesn't change the end result. Hell, you can add every person who died in the atomic bombings to the nuclear tally (even though that makes no sense at all), and it still won't change the result.
- Retric 5y ago
  No, you don’t get 2.5 million deaths per year from fossil fuel usage. Though a few seriously flawed studies have gotten some very extreme numbers. For example respiratory diseases represent ~5% of all Chinese deaths or about 500,000 in 2020. Which is a horrific sign of air pollution except China also has 350 million smokers. Looking at the non smoker population you see air pollution as a major factor, but again not all air pollution is from fossil fuels. Air pollution is also associated to strokes and heart attacks, but again other factors are involved.
  - karaterobot 5y ago
    True, it is likely much higher[1], but the 2.4 million I cited comes from an older estimate that used different data. [1] https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel...
    - Retric 5y ago
      Yet here’s one saying 1.05 million. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23853-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23853-y It’s easy to find flawed studies with silly results, the underlying reality is rarely so extreme.

caddywompus 5y ago

Definitely, but those figures can't be compared directly, since deaths by air pollution are caused by industry scale deployment of both small and large power plants/generators/engines. I fail to see how [2] is related in any way to the conversation. As I said, I do believe that nuclear energy has a place in current and future energy production. The other things we humans are bad at, is implementing solutions that last decades. It is inevitable, that over a period of 30 or 50 years, there will be multiple lost small reactor installations. My case in point, is meant to be the aforementioned videos, where an extremely expensive radiotherapy machine can be neglected to the point of abandonment. What I want to highlight, is the insidious nature of a potential loss of a radioactive source. A small amount of material can contaminate a very large area relative to it's size, and its not something that can be seen or detected without equipment. And the type of damage isn't as immediate or jarring as say a runaway reaction/meltdown, it would be limited to people who unintentionally handle, or ingest particulate. For example, if you don't realize that you've been exposed to a material like this, you can carry it around on your clothes, or in to your home, and that's the real issue. You're body would be exposed to radiation over a long period of time, eventually resulting in a higher than safe dose. Any cancers/diseases as a result of this may not even be attributed to exposure, since a person may not have even realized they came into contact with it. > That is true. Another weakness humans have is our inability to intuit large numbers and probabilities. I'm not sure if this is meant to be a jab at my comment, it's not my intent to be a scare monger, but I would like to point out these past incidents to highlight the unique nature of the danger inherent to these materials.

mdorazio 5y ago

1) Please stop using fatality comparisons when talking about radiation incidents - it's disingenuous. You need to look at total impact, including negative outcomes like cancers and reduced life expectancies rather than outright deaths. 2) If your argument is "it's better than the worst alternative" then your argument is not very good. You should be comparing to power sources that are not fossil fuel-based, which is the real alternative we want to move toward

stickfigure 5y ago
1) Fatality statistics are the best measurement we have. Sure, there's a long tail of lesser impacts for nuclear power; there's also a long tail of disabilities and reduced life expectancies for pollution too. 2) How about "it's better than other power sources that can consistently service base load"?
- onethought 5y ago
  Love the base load argument… if only there was a way to store electricity, we’d stop hearing these ridiculous “base load” arguments
  - hetman 5y ago
    You mean, if only there was an economically viable way to store electricity. Still waiting on that one.
    - onethought 5y ago
      Batteries. Economic viability is the next argument when you externalise the true cost (carbon).
      - hetman 5y ago
        Carbon is not the only possible cost to the environment. Building batteries is not exactly easy on the planet either.

Johnny555 5y ago

For example, it's hard for people to really grok that, even if you added up all the people who have died from nuclear and radiation accidents in all of history[1], including not just the sources you mentioned, but disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, it would be far less than the number of people who die from pollution caused by fossil fuels every month That's kind of a false equivalency since fossil fuel plants are much more common than nuclear plants (nuclear generates ~10% of the world's electrical power), and they tend to be highly regulated and maintained, and run by first world nations. But if nuclear was as ubiquitous as fossil fuel plants, it would also be run by poorer nations with less ability to maintain them. So you can't really compare nuclear plants that exist today with what we'd see if nuclear were as common as fossil fuel plants.

foxyv 5y ago
Nuclear power currently makes up 20% of US electrical power. Fossil fuels are 60% of grid electricity. Multiply by 3 and you are there in the US. France is at 70% so they are already there. I don't see any significant deaths from nuclear power there. I agree that nuclear isn't currently a great solution for stuff like trucks and planes. However for baseline power generation it is one of the best low carbon energy solutions when taking into account storage costs to provide constant power from intermittent sources like wind and solar.

lamontcg 5y ago

The biggest problem with nuclear is that its too expensive. And that's before factoring in the $187B cost of cleaning up Fukushima. The "but nobody died" argument doesn't matter. You're still arguing with Jane Fonda in 1979. You need be arguing with economists in 2021.

forgotmypw17 5y ago

>even if you added up all the people who have died from nuclear and radiation accidents in all of history The whole area for hundreds of kilometers around Chernobyl is now polluted, for decades and centuries to come. This affects everyone in that area, don't let statistics fool you. EVERYONE.