4 ms·

> 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

by 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]”
  - ravenstine 5y ago
    > 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. That's exactly what you are doing. To be honest, I can't tell if you're serious because all you are doing is making statements and then just linking to pages without citing any particular fact. > 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. If you had a point to make, it wouldn't take someone reading a whole page to compare what is essentially two arguments around quantitative figures. You'd be able to state a counterargument with some form of rationale. Just linking to a page and telling me to "get started" by "reading up" doesn't cut it. This is a discussion forum, and it's really not polite to just tell people they are wrong and not explain why. Nobody has time to read an entire encyclopedia entry to figure out why you are right and everyone else is wrong.
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > That's exactly what you are doing. To be honest, I can't tell if you're serious because all you are doing is making statements and then just linking to pages without citing any particular fact. No, not really. You might feel the need to ignore any of the sources I've cited, or even try to refute anything mentioned in them, but you can't pretend that the facts I've pointed out are baseless or even personal assertions. This sort of position is particularly undefendable considering that you're purposely turning a blind eye to the baseless and completely unrealistic assertion that sparked this thread. So,if you have any intention of actually discussing the topic, please stick to the facts instead of playing games trying to shift burdens away from your claims. > If you had a point to make, it wouldn't take someone reading a whole page (...) Please don't try to pretend that well-supported and referenced facts are free to be ignored just because you either don't like them or prefer to ignore them.
- natmaka 5y ago
  > if we are to believe the likes of the WHO and the UN This is central. Incidentally: WHO is an UN agency, they aren't really two sources and work the same way. There are many studies about the amount of deaths related to nuclear accidents, and their conclusions vary widely. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
The_Colonel 5y ago
It's like with cars vs. airplanes. Most people learned to live with the comparatively high risk of driving a car, yet often have a (silent) fear of flying Boeing/Airbus even though they are much safer. Psychological effect of high-profile airplane accidents vs. small scale (but much more numerous) car deaths. The list of e.g. hydroelectric accidents is very long and deadly, but they are not as "spectacular". How many people are aware of Banqiao Dam failure, which killed 250 000 people and with that single-handedly exceeded the death toll of all nuclear accidents combined? There's actually several studies of energy sources and their "deaths per TWh" and nuclear usually comes out as the safest.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > It's like with cars vs. airplanes. Most people learned to live with the comparatively high risk of driving a car, yet often have a (silent) fear of flying Boeing/Airbus even though they are much safer. I don't feel this is a serious comparison, let alone conveys the tradeoffs that need to be considered. The risk on the table is pretty much the NIMBY rationale: if you're arguing about risks and given that it's unthinkable to presume that there is zero chance of experiencing problems on any type of power plant, do you prefer to deal with a technology whose failure mode does not have any significant impact or do you wish to deal with a technology whose failure modes involve the need to create and manage exclusion zones with a radius of dozens of km which persist for decades on end? This is particularly relevant as we consider that the bulk of energy demands come from densely occupied urban regions. And regarding safety, this sort of risk assessment stats used to push Nuclear as a safe alternative fails to take into account the strategic importance of a power plant and how they are automatically targets in any national security scenario. Thus extrapolating peace time statistics, which are already quite bad, also fails to adequately classify the full risks of relying on nuclear.
  - visarga 5y ago
    Let me spell it out: more people will die and suffer if we don't support nuclear. There is no way to fix it with renewables. It would just waste the time and amplify the damages.

by nuerow 5y ago

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]”
- ravenstine 5y ago
  > 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. That's exactly what you are doing. To be honest, I can't tell if you're serious because all you are doing is making statements and then just linking to pages without citing any particular fact. > 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. If you had a point to make, it wouldn't take someone reading a whole page to compare what is essentially two arguments around quantitative figures. You'd be able to state a counterargument with some form of rationale. Just linking to a page and telling me to "get started" by "reading up" doesn't cut it. This is a discussion forum, and it's really not polite to just tell people they are wrong and not explain why. Nobody has time to read an entire encyclopedia entry to figure out why you are right and everyone else is wrong.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > That's exactly what you are doing. To be honest, I can't tell if you're serious because all you are doing is making statements and then just linking to pages without citing any particular fact. No, not really. You might feel the need to ignore any of the sources I've cited, or even try to refute anything mentioned in them, but you can't pretend that the facts I've pointed out are baseless or even personal assertions. This sort of position is particularly undefendable considering that you're purposely turning a blind eye to the baseless and completely unrealistic assertion that sparked this thread. So,if you have any intention of actually discussing the topic, please stick to the facts instead of playing games trying to shift burdens away from your claims. > If you had a point to make, it wouldn't take someone reading a whole page (...) Please don't try to pretend that well-supported and referenced facts are free to be ignored just because you either don't like them or prefer to ignore them.
natmaka 5y ago
> if we are to believe the likes of the WHO and the UN This is central. Incidentally: WHO is an UN agency, they aren't really two sources and work the same way. There are many studies about the amount of deaths related to nuclear accidents, and their conclusions vary widely. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...

The_Colonel 5y ago

It's like with cars vs. airplanes. Most people learned to live with the comparatively high risk of driving a car, yet often have a (silent) fear of flying Boeing/Airbus even though they are much safer. Psychological effect of high-profile airplane accidents vs. small scale (but much more numerous) car deaths. The list of e.g. hydroelectric accidents is very long and deadly, but they are not as "spectacular". How many people are aware of Banqiao Dam failure, which killed 250 000 people and with that single-handedly exceeded the death toll of all nuclear accidents combined? There's actually several studies of energy sources and their "deaths per TWh" and nuclear usually comes out as the safest.

nuerow 5y ago
> It's like with cars vs. airplanes. Most people learned to live with the comparatively high risk of driving a car, yet often have a (silent) fear of flying Boeing/Airbus even though they are much safer. I don't feel this is a serious comparison, let alone conveys the tradeoffs that need to be considered. The risk on the table is pretty much the NIMBY rationale: if you're arguing about risks and given that it's unthinkable to presume that there is zero chance of experiencing problems on any type of power plant, do you prefer to deal with a technology whose failure mode does not have any significant impact or do you wish to deal with a technology whose failure modes involve the need to create and manage exclusion zones with a radius of dozens of km which persist for decades on end? This is particularly relevant as we consider that the bulk of energy demands come from densely occupied urban regions. And regarding safety, this sort of risk assessment stats used to push Nuclear as a safe alternative fails to take into account the strategic importance of a power plant and how they are automatically targets in any national security scenario. Thus extrapolating peace time statistics, which are already quite bad, also fails to adequately classify the full risks of relying on nuclear.
- visarga 5y ago
  Let me spell it out: more people will die and suffer if we don't support nuclear. There is no way to fix it with renewables. It would just waste the time and amplify the damages.