3 ms·

Given the track history of near nuclear accidents, attempting to dismantle all of the existing ones may be statistically more likely to cause an accident, simpl

by s5300 5y ago

Given the track history of near nuclear accidents, attempting to dismantle all of the existing ones may be statistically more likely to cause an accident, simply in the dismantling process. I'm still mind bogglingly confused at how badly the San Onofre nuclear power plant got butchered that I really think there was sabotage involved. It's hard to believe what happened to the place is all because of sheer stupidity.

acidburnNSA 5y ago
Nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors do both leverage atomic nuclei, but they are pretty darn different. Dismantling nuclear weapons is unlikely to cause a radiological accident. Before nuclear detonation, nuclear weapons aren't all that radioactive. Nothing like post detonation. You probably know this, but nuclear reactors, despite how well known various incidents are, are still among the safest, cleanest, and lowest carbon ways to make electricity we know [1] [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Johnny555 5y ago
Given the track history of near nuclear accidents, attempting to dismantle all of the existing ones may be statistically more likely to cause an accident, simply in the dismantling process. Nuclear weapons don't last forever and need to be dismantled/replaced at some point, so dismantling them all doesn't add additional risk as long as it's done over a long enough period that they would have needed to be replaced anyway.
lostlogin 5y ago
> the San Onofre nuclear power plant got butchered Have you any link to a good summary? The Wikipedia is interesting but doesn’t make us sound as malicious/scandalous as you suggest.
krisoft 5y ago
“Dismantling the nukes” doesn’t necessarily mean to monkey with the physical package. You can just change the alert level of the nuclear forces. Instead of paying man and women to operate the silos at hair trigger, you can pay them to move the warheads to storage where they protect them. It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing proposition.

by s5300 5y ago

acidburnNSA 5y ago

Nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors do both leverage atomic nuclei, but they are pretty darn different. Dismantling nuclear weapons is unlikely to cause a radiological accident. Before nuclear detonation, nuclear weapons aren't all that radioactive. Nothing like post detonation. You probably know this, but nuclear reactors, despite how well known various incidents are, are still among the safest, cleanest, and lowest carbon ways to make electricity we know [1] [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Johnny555 5y ago

Given the track history of near nuclear accidents, attempting to dismantle all of the existing ones may be statistically more likely to cause an accident, simply in the dismantling process. Nuclear weapons don't last forever and need to be dismantled/replaced at some point, so dismantling them all doesn't add additional risk as long as it's done over a long enough period that they would have needed to be replaced anyway.

lostlogin 5y ago

> the San Onofre nuclear power plant got butchered Have you any link to a good summary? The Wikipedia is interesting but doesn’t make us sound as malicious/scandalous as you suggest.

krisoft 5y ago

“Dismantling the nukes” doesn’t necessarily mean to monkey with the physical package. You can just change the alert level of the nuclear forces. Instead of paying man and women to operate the silos at hair trigger, you can pay them to move the warheads to storage where they protect them. It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing proposition.