3 ms·

This isn’t convincing, sorry. While Fukushima wasn’t that bad, it could have been terrible. It had the potential to make a large region of Japan uninhabitable a

This isn’t convincing, sorry. While Fukushima wasn’t that bad, it could have been terrible. It had the potential to make a large region of Japan uninhabitable and poison the food supply. That is super serious. Just because nothing bad happened this time, doesn’t mean that we’ll be so lucky in the future. The biggest issue with your argument is that you have inadequate explanations for the failures that have happened. Chernobyl: bad reactor design. Fukushima: under engineered. Obviously people don’t set out to poorly design or under engineer a nuclear power plant. How do we know that we haven’t missed anything significant and crucial to long term safe operation? Such a thing is unknowable, so all we can do is look at the evidence, and the evidence is that there is a history of poor design choices leading to events that border on calamity. Humans are fallible. Choosing a strategy that can go horribly wrong due to human error is not wise in my opinion.

funklute 5y ago
> Obviously people don’t set out to poorly design or under engineer a nuclear power plant. But quite importantly, in both of those cases the failure scenarios were not unknown (though the risk was deemed acceptable, for whatever reasons). Unknown failure scenarios don't really happen in this space -- such a thing is neither acceptable nor expected. > Humans are fallible. But of course, this I can't argue with. Nor that Chernobyl and Fukushima did in fact happen. > Choosing a strategy that can go horribly wrong due to human error is not wise in my opinion. So what it boils down to, in my mind, is a numbers game. We know that climate change has the potential for killing hundreds of millions of people, if not more. We know that coal power plants routinely and completely expectedly kill a bunch of people (the numbers really are staggering for something so common). So the point I'm making is that Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the general risk with nuclear, should not on its own stop us from building out nuclear. It has to be a balance with the risks of the other options. (large-scale battery capacity and the economics of nuclear are additional jokers in this debate, but let's not get into that) > While Fukushima wasn’t that bad, it could have been terrible. It had the potential... Finally -- while I understand where you're coming from -- this particular argument doesn't sit that well with me. It's a little too easy to use this as a "slippery slope" style appeal to emotions, rather than objective evidence. To turn it around: climate change has the potential to wipe out humanity. We should shut down literally all coal power plants tomorrow, and start building thousands of nuclear power plants. This is of course not a reasonable argument, and nor is it reasonable of me to completely denounce your concern here. So this is where the details of the risk/benefits analysis matters, and above all it has to be an evidence-based argument. I don't think emotive arguments about how bad Fukushima or Chernobyl was or could have been, have a place in this debate.

funklute 5y ago

> Obviously people don’t set out to poorly design or under engineer a nuclear power plant. But quite importantly, in both of those cases the failure scenarios were not unknown (though the risk was deemed acceptable, for whatever reasons). Unknown failure scenarios don't really happen in this space -- such a thing is neither acceptable nor expected. > Humans are fallible. But of course, this I can't argue with. Nor that Chernobyl and Fukushima did in fact happen. > Choosing a strategy that can go horribly wrong due to human error is not wise in my opinion. So what it boils down to, in my mind, is a numbers game. We know that climate change has the potential for killing hundreds of millions of people, if not more. We know that coal power plants routinely and completely expectedly kill a bunch of people (the numbers really are staggering for something so common). So the point I'm making is that Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the general risk with nuclear, should not on its own stop us from building out nuclear. It has to be a balance with the risks of the other options. (large-scale battery capacity and the economics of nuclear are additional jokers in this debate, but let's not get into that) > While Fukushima wasn’t that bad, it could have been terrible. It had the potential... Finally -- while I understand where you're coming from -- this particular argument doesn't sit that well with me. It's a little too easy to use this as a "slippery slope" style appeal to emotions, rather than objective evidence. To turn it around: climate change has the potential to wipe out humanity. We should shut down literally all coal power plants tomorrow, and start building thousands of nuclear power plants. This is of course not a reasonable argument, and nor is it reasonable of me to completely denounce your concern here. So this is where the details of the risk/benefits analysis matters, and above all it has to be an evidence-based argument. I don't think emotive arguments about how bad Fukushima or Chernobyl was or could have been, have a place in this debate.