5 ms·

The data I was referring to is already normalized in that way: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of

The data I was referring to is already normalized in that way: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy I don't believe an honest person can look at that chart and think nuclear safety is a a real problem, especially since the majority of those nuclear deaths were with old reactor designs. It seems like one of those misplaced, irrational fears like fear of flying.

Kon5ole 5y ago
I believe you are making a logical mistake. The chart only shows what has happened, which has no relation to what might happen. To make a simple analogy - No matter how many times you walk blindly into a busy street without getting hit by a car it is still dangerous to do so.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  There is that, but we KNOW what is going to happen with climate change. People are not going to change their ways before it's too late. We LOVE energy, and upcoming countries are only going to use more fossil fuel and it's going to get worse. Unless there is a 10x increase in our capabilities in renewables in the next 10 years we're done.
  - Kon5ole 5y ago
    A fair point, but I feel that we are making good progress towards being able to solve the energy supply without nuclear. If we develop solar and wind (and other things such as battery banks, pumped storage etc) to a point where installations are cheap, well known and reliable enough, then developing nations might choose to use those before investing heavily in fossils.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  Your point is that there is a long tail risk which exists which might not show up in the historical data. I think this is wrong because Chernobyl is that tail risk and it is already inside the data, and moreover the odds of that tail risk happening again have declined and so it's exaggerated. A better analogy is the stock market, where the GFC and the great depression are tail risks that are already inside the data. Or data on pedestrian fatalities across an entire country, where tail risks are represented due to law of large numbers across many people. If you think building modern reactor designs away from cities presents a bigger tail risk than Chernobyl, you're going to have to outline how that is a plausible situation rather than going for analogies.
  - Kon5ole 5y ago
    I understand your argument but disagree about Chernobyl being the tall risk. This is basically the the same logical errer again, Chernobyl is only the worst incident that has happened /so far/. It is well documented that Chernobyl itself could easily have been much worse, and the real tall risk is something like a ”dirty” bomb made possible by negligent handling of radioactive materials. There are several known incidents where discarded radioactive materials have killed people and contaminated buildings, this happens regularly even without malicious intent.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      > This is basically the the same logical errer again It's not necessarily a logical error. Extreme value theory should be the default tool for understanding tail risks (e.g. earthquake magnitude), unless we have good theoretical/logical reasons to depart from an understanding that's mostly informed by historical data. Nuclear weapons are where I agree with your perspective. The tail risk is significantly larger than what is present in historical data, and attempts to understand this risk by looking at historical data are flawed. Nuclear energy, like earthquake magnitude, is where I disagree with your perspective, unless you can present a coherent rationale about why nuclear power tail risk is drastically underestimated by the historical data, especially after taking into consideration modern plant designs which are safer than Chernobyl + the possibility of building them in the desert with nobody nearby.
      - Kon5ole 5y ago
        Hey first of all thanks for the constructive replies, much appreciated! "Attempts to understand this risk by looking at historical data are flawed" is a good summary of my main point, you got it. Basically I think we can't ignore the possibility of large incidents just because they haven't happened yet. We can extrapolate from known small incidents, some of which are listed on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_acc... Some standouts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_San_Juan_de_Dios_radiotherapy_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_San_Juan_de_Dios_radiothe... Other incidents mentioned without separate stories include radioactive waste finding its way into road pavement, apartment building materials (hundreds of contaminated flats, nobody found out for years). Incidents such as these have killed many people over several decades in many countries, and that's just through sheer negligence. What if someone adds malice to the mix? That's actually my main concern about nuclear power, not the safety of the reactors. But since you mentioned building them in a desert in order to be safe I feel the need to mention my perspective there too. First of all, Chernobyl had 4 reactors and only one exploded, thanks to heroic effort. (Meaning it could at the very least have been 4x worse than it was). The event was actually discovered in the west by sensors in Sweden, which is very far away. Fallout from Chernobyl made certain grazing animals surpass legal radiation levels for over 30 years (and counting) in areas as remote as Lapland and Bavaria. To put the distances in perspective if you are American, it means that a similar event as Chernobyl taking place in Florida would make pigs from Texas and Caribou from Ontario be unsuitable for human consumption, for many decades. So distance does not really help. In order to be safe by putting power plants in a desert, the USA would basically need to put it's reactors in the Sahara. The safest place for a reactor would be inside a very stable and peaceful country with a very high level of mental health in the entire population. Maybe Switzerland? I'm not saying we shouldn't even consider it under any circumstance, but if there's any other option (which I believe) then that option is probably preferable.

Kon5ole 5y ago

I believe you are making a logical mistake. The chart only shows what has happened, which has no relation to what might happen. To make a simple analogy - No matter how many times you walk blindly into a busy street without getting hit by a car it is still dangerous to do so.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
There is that, but we KNOW what is going to happen with climate change. People are not going to change their ways before it's too late. We LOVE energy, and upcoming countries are only going to use more fossil fuel and it's going to get worse. Unless there is a 10x increase in our capabilities in renewables in the next 10 years we're done.
- Kon5ole 5y ago
  A fair point, but I feel that we are making good progress towards being able to solve the energy supply without nuclear. If we develop solar and wind (and other things such as battery banks, pumped storage etc) to a point where installations are cheap, well known and reliable enough, then developing nations might choose to use those before investing heavily in fossils.
fighterpilot 5y ago
Your point is that there is a long tail risk which exists which might not show up in the historical data. I think this is wrong because Chernobyl is that tail risk and it is already inside the data, and moreover the odds of that tail risk happening again have declined and so it's exaggerated. A better analogy is the stock market, where the GFC and the great depression are tail risks that are already inside the data. Or data on pedestrian fatalities across an entire country, where tail risks are represented due to law of large numbers across many people. If you think building modern reactor designs away from cities presents a bigger tail risk than Chernobyl, you're going to have to outline how that is a plausible situation rather than going for analogies.
- Kon5ole 5y ago
  I understand your argument but disagree about Chernobyl being the tall risk. This is basically the the same logical errer again, Chernobyl is only the worst incident that has happened /so far/. It is well documented that Chernobyl itself could easily have been much worse, and the real tall risk is something like a ”dirty” bomb made possible by negligent handling of radioactive materials. There are several known incidents where discarded radioactive materials have killed people and contaminated buildings, this happens regularly even without malicious intent.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    > This is basically the the same logical errer again It's not necessarily a logical error. Extreme value theory should be the default tool for understanding tail risks (e.g. earthquake magnitude), unless we have good theoretical/logical reasons to depart from an understanding that's mostly informed by historical data. Nuclear weapons are where I agree with your perspective. The tail risk is significantly larger than what is present in historical data, and attempts to understand this risk by looking at historical data are flawed. Nuclear energy, like earthquake magnitude, is where I disagree with your perspective, unless you can present a coherent rationale about why nuclear power tail risk is drastically underestimated by the historical data, especially after taking into consideration modern plant designs which are safer than Chernobyl + the possibility of building them in the desert with nobody nearby.
    - Kon5ole 5y ago
      Hey first of all thanks for the constructive replies, much appreciated! "Attempts to understand this risk by looking at historical data are flawed" is a good summary of my main point, you got it. Basically I think we can't ignore the possibility of large incidents just because they haven't happened yet. We can extrapolate from known small incidents, some of which are listed on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_acc... Some standouts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_San_Juan_de_Dios_radiotherapy_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_San_Juan_de_Dios_radiothe... Other incidents mentioned without separate stories include radioactive waste finding its way into road pavement, apartment building materials (hundreds of contaminated flats, nobody found out for years). Incidents such as these have killed many people over several decades in many countries, and that's just through sheer negligence. What if someone adds malice to the mix? That's actually my main concern about nuclear power, not the safety of the reactors. But since you mentioned building them in a desert in order to be safe I feel the need to mention my perspective there too. First of all, Chernobyl had 4 reactors and only one exploded, thanks to heroic effort. (Meaning it could at the very least have been 4x worse than it was). The event was actually discovered in the west by sensors in Sweden, which is very far away. Fallout from Chernobyl made certain grazing animals surpass legal radiation levels for over 30 years (and counting) in areas as remote as Lapland and Bavaria. To put the distances in perspective if you are American, it means that a similar event as Chernobyl taking place in Florida would make pigs from Texas and Caribou from Ontario be unsuitable for human consumption, for many decades. So distance does not really help. In order to be safe by putting power plants in a desert, the USA would basically need to put it's reactors in the Sahara. The safest place for a reactor would be inside a very stable and peaceful country with a very high level of mental health in the entire population. Maybe Switzerland? I'm not saying we shouldn't even consider it under any circumstance, but if there's any other option (which I believe) then that option is probably preferable.