4 ms·
> The cost, in lives, of a major nuclear containment failure is easily in the millions to tens of millions. > My priors on this shifted tremendously after Fuku
by sauwan 4y ago
> The cost, in lives, of a major nuclear containment failure is easily in the millions to tens of millions.
> My priors on this shifted tremendously after Fukushima.
I'm curious why, despite Fukushima being pretty close to the worst-case scenario with modern technology, you feel these are mutually compatible feelings?
- andrewla 4y ago> despite Fukushima being pretty close to the worst-case scenario with modern technology I mean, we all know what the worst-case scenarios actually look like because we have deliberately triggered containment failures for military purposes. Are you comfortable with the idea that nuclear reactors may melt down, but if we're lucky they will have minimal impact? Before Fukushima I feel like the message was unambiguously that meltdowns in modern technology are impossible. Now I do not trust that message.
- sauwan 4y agoI think there's a difference between the theoretical worst-case scenario and the realistic worst-case scenario. A one-two punch of the largest recorded earthquake on record followed by a tsunami feels pretty close to realistic worst-case scenario. We can always fret and wring our hands about plausible issues, but we also need to recognize the cost of inaction as well. The risk of catastrophic meltdowns costing millions of lives is so small it's hardly worth factoring into a cost-benefit equation at all.