3 ms·

Then I guess we're effed then. After all, if we can't trust non-government entities like Equifax with private records, why even go as far as trusting some othe

Then I guess we're effed then. After all, if we can't trust non-government entities like Equifax with private records, why even go as far as trusting some other non-government entities to handle nuclear reactors? We're all to die then, if we're to believe that letting climate change take its course is better than the occasional nuclear meltdown. > Governments and corporations have not responded to climate change adequately so far and there is no evidence that this is about to change. How else are they to fill their pockets with wealth taxed via inflation if there are no crises? There must always be a crisis looming to get people to part with their wealth. > Even with the high profile accidents, nuclear power is something we know we can actually do, and has produced fewer excess deaths than coal. Leadership knows full well that this is a fact. Think about that.

nuerow 5y ago
> Then I guess we're effed then. After all, if we can't trust non-government entities like Equifax with private records, why even go as far as trusting some other non-government entities to handle nuclear reactors? The point is that the drawbacks of Nuclear far out weight it's benefits, and it's simply better all around to invest into energy sources which aren't as reliant on flawless management or execution to avoid catastrophic failure modes.
- zepto 5y ago
  > The point is that the drawbacks of Nuclear far out weight it's benefits The evidence so far points to the opposite.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > The evidence so far points to the opposite. No, not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident... And keep in mind that the whole world, which is migrating away from nuclear, also disagrees with that personal assertion.
    - ravenstine 5y ago
      Thereby no one should rightfully speculate or disagree? That's pretty fallacious. Also, that Wikipedia page you just looked up doesn't really make a good case for your assertion. > [...] although nobody has died or is expected to die from radiation effects [of Fukishima]. The number of deaths related to Nuclear accidents doesn't even exceed the single-digit thousands, and after Chernobyl the number of deaths related to other accidents doesn't even exceed 20. On the other hand, virtually every globalist governmental entity (if we're gonna go by appeals to authority and majority here) believes that climate change will soon be related to hundreds of thousands of deaths per year. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-cha... > Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress. So no, the migration away from nuclear doesn't close the case on why places like California moved away from nuclear. There could be a Chernobyl every year and, if we are to believe the likes of the WHO and the UN, it still wouldn't approach the number of deaths resulting from climate change.
      - nuerow 5y ago
        > Thereby no one should rightfully speculate or disagree? That's pretty fallacious. It's one thing to state that you personally believe in something. It's an entirely different thing to try to pass off a personal opinion and baseless assertions as some kind of established consensus, particluarly as they fly in the face of reality. > Also, that Wikipedia page you just looked up doesn't really make a good case for your assertion. It presents solid enough cases to motivate the current global phase-out of Nuclear power. And, unlike the GP's personal assertion, it does provide a rationale based on facts and real-world experience assessed and considered by decision-makers. If you have a genuine curiosity about the subject and you're interested in getting up to speed on the topic, you may start by reading up on this as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
        zepto 5y ago
        That page simply describes how the environmental case against nuclear power was made before climate change began to be taken seriously. If we didn’t have to worry about the impacts of climate change, I’d agree with phasing out nuclear. But we do. “These pieces of criticism have however largely been quelled by the IPCC which indicated in 2014 that nuclear energy was a low carbon energy production technology, comparable to wind and lower than solar in that regard.[135]”
  - cute_boi 5y ago
    At the point in time I think I am really ambivalent about nuclear Energy. Its not just Chernobyl but Fukushima incident that illustrates how minuscule error in our calculation can create a debacle. As more countries starts to enjoy nuclear energy the risk will further increas. And Imo the main problem is we can't even control the nuclear meltdown waste and whole world might have to suffer the consequence which can be problematic (One example I can remember is how China was complaining when Japan decided to release those waste nuclear water). Is there guarantee way to construct safe nuclear plant? I am asking because I don't know the state of arts regarding nuclear power plant (I have started to hear about Thorium and don't know about safety and google is not the friend here unfortunately). If there are natural disasters etc., is nuclear plant robust against meltdown? Can we calculate the risk before hand?
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  A blanket assertion that "drawbacks far outweigh benefits" with no rational argument behind it is not helpful in this discussion. The article you are replying to makes the case that it is, and while you have a right to disagree, and are even welcome to go ahead and make your case, you are not adding any value to this discussion by saying "clearly this is wrong" and just leaving it at that.

nuerow 5y ago

> Then I guess we're effed then. After all, if we can't trust non-government entities like Equifax with private records, why even go as far as trusting some other non-government entities to handle nuclear reactors? The point is that the drawbacks of Nuclear far out weight it's benefits, and it's simply better all around to invest into energy sources which aren't as reliant on flawless management or execution to avoid catastrophic failure modes.

zepto 5y ago
> The point is that the drawbacks of Nuclear far out weight it's benefits The evidence so far points to the opposite.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > The evidence so far points to the opposite. No, not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident... And keep in mind that the whole world, which is migrating away from nuclear, also disagrees with that personal assertion.
  - ravenstine 5y ago
    Thereby no one should rightfully speculate or disagree? That's pretty fallacious. Also, that Wikipedia page you just looked up doesn't really make a good case for your assertion. > [...] although nobody has died or is expected to die from radiation effects [of Fukishima]. The number of deaths related to Nuclear accidents doesn't even exceed the single-digit thousands, and after Chernobyl the number of deaths related to other accidents doesn't even exceed 20. On the other hand, virtually every globalist governmental entity (if we're gonna go by appeals to authority and majority here) believes that climate change will soon be related to hundreds of thousands of deaths per year. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-cha... > Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress. So no, the migration away from nuclear doesn't close the case on why places like California moved away from nuclear. There could be a Chernobyl every year and, if we are to believe the likes of the WHO and the UN, it still wouldn't approach the number of deaths resulting from climate change.
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > Thereby no one should rightfully speculate or disagree? That's pretty fallacious. It's one thing to state that you personally believe in something. It's an entirely different thing to try to pass off a personal opinion and baseless assertions as some kind of established consensus, particluarly as they fly in the face of reality. > Also, that Wikipedia page you just looked up doesn't really make a good case for your assertion. It presents solid enough cases to motivate the current global phase-out of Nuclear power. And, unlike the GP's personal assertion, it does provide a rationale based on facts and real-world experience assessed and considered by decision-makers. If you have a genuine curiosity about the subject and you're interested in getting up to speed on the topic, you may start by reading up on this as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
      - zepto 5y ago
        That page simply describes how the environmental case against nuclear power was made before climate change began to be taken seriously. If we didn’t have to worry about the impacts of climate change, I’d agree with phasing out nuclear. But we do. “These pieces of criticism have however largely been quelled by the IPCC which indicated in 2014 that nuclear energy was a low carbon energy production technology, comparable to wind and lower than solar in that regard.[135]”
- cute_boi 5y ago
  At the point in time I think I am really ambivalent about nuclear Energy. Its not just Chernobyl but Fukushima incident that illustrates how minuscule error in our calculation can create a debacle. As more countries starts to enjoy nuclear energy the risk will further increas. And Imo the main problem is we can't even control the nuclear meltdown waste and whole world might have to suffer the consequence which can be problematic (One example I can remember is how China was complaining when Japan decided to release those waste nuclear water). Is there guarantee way to construct safe nuclear plant? I am asking because I don't know the state of arts regarding nuclear power plant (I have started to hear about Thorium and don't know about safety and google is not the friend here unfortunately). If there are natural disasters etc., is nuclear plant robust against meltdown? Can we calculate the risk before hand?
rsj_hn 5y ago
A blanket assertion that "drawbacks far outweigh benefits" with no rational argument behind it is not helpful in this discussion. The article you are replying to makes the case that it is, and while you have a right to disagree, and are even welcome to go ahead and make your case, you are not adding any value to this discussion by saying "clearly this is wrong" and just leaving it at that.