7 ms·

A lot of the anti-nuclear opinion is passionately opposed to scientific analysis. They're convinced Chernobyl can happen again, and that scientists are arrogan

A lot of the anti-nuclear opinion is passionately opposed to scientific analysis. They're convinced Chernobyl can happen again, and that scientists are arrogantly playing god when they explain what can and can't happen

k__ 4y ago
The last time I heard a physicist evaluate nuclear, it didn't look like any notable improvements happened in the last 20 years.
- hedora 4y ago
  Well, maybe, but most nuclear reactor designs are at least 50 years out of date, and a lot of progress was made between 1970 and 2000.
- neuronexmachina 4y ago
  Do you have the source where you heard that? Also worth noting that Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island were all built 50-60 years ago.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    Right. This is a bit like evaluating airline safety based on the design of Amelia Earhart's plane.
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
What "scientific" analysis has claimed "chernobyl can't happen again" ? It would be as ridiculous as someone claiming the new Airbus XXX model can't crash. Even analysis of the type "a chernobyl will happen once every XX years" are more political in nature than scientific, since you are assuming a stable society for decades to come (i.e. no degradation in the skill level of constructors or operators, etc. -- even foreign ones). Which, barring sudden miraculous discoveries in the area of Psychohistory, is basically entirely politics and outside the realm of science.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Chernobyl can't happen again because the awful design that made that failure possible is long ago abandoned. It's a bit like how the Airbus A380 can't crash like the Hindenburg airship did.
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    I'm quite sure that no one who asks "can chernobyl can happen again?" is actually interested in the response to "can chernobyl happen again _in exactly the same way_"?. This is malicious nitpicking. In the same way that I'm sure the victims of the next Airbus crash will be happy to know that "it didn't crash like the Hindenburg did".
    - knorker 4y ago
      Is it not malicious to scream "chernobyl!" willfully deceptively or willfully ignorantly confusing what can and cannot happen? More people die every single year from radiation in coal than have died in the entire history of nuclear power. Replacing all coal with nuclear would save more lives and health than fighting nuclear ever could, even in theory. And delaying coal to nuclear under the banner of "wind and solar maybe one day can help a bit" has blood on its hands. Every year coal is still here, instead of nuclear, is 100 years of death. If building powerplants (of any type) were instant, and solar were one year away, then we should STILL replace all coal with nuclear TODAY, to minimize harm. (in a spherical chickens in a vacuum sort of way) And not only do we not have enough solar, we don't even have a plan for energy storage for solar and wind. We have ideas, not a plan. So solar&wind replacing coal&nuclear is further away than fusion power, by multiples.
      - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        To exemplify the difference between science and politics: - Nuclear is safer than coal: science (true or not, it's not the point) - We need to go all the way nuclear: politics. There's a million other things to consider, many of them don't even each into the realm of what is falsifiable (e.g international relations, fuel availability, who knows). _Even_ if nuclear was literally the safest method ever, it is literally still politics whether to use nuclear or not; after all, we sacrifice safety for convenience _many_ times, and good luck defining "convenience" in a scientific way. Another example: - Vaccines are safe and effective (scientific; true or not is not the point) - Vaccines are safe enough compared to the risk of catching the disease itself ("social" sciences; caveat emptor) - We should force everyone to vaccinate (politics). It does not matter if vaccines are safe, or not. It is still a political topic, not scientific. There are things like ethics, social vs individual rights, etc. that are hardly quantifiable much less scientific.
Patrol8394 4y ago
Let's talk Fukushima ?
- trinovantes 4y ago
  Issues with Fukushima that could've prevented the disaster were raised by engineers/scientists but were ignored for years by the government/politicians
  - 8note 4y ago
    That's always going to happen though. The government doesn't always have attention and money to shower on nuclear plants.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    ...and what lessons can we draw from this?
    - trinovantes 4y ago
      Trust your nuclear scientists/engineers because they know what they're doing and are, in fact, not playing god
  - YetAnotherNick 4y ago
    So? Anything could have been prevented on hindsight.
    - theshrike79 4y ago
      It's not hindsight when someone warns you beforehand.
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        Given a large enough population, you can always in hindsight find someone who predicted the outcome.
hammock 4y ago
Thank you for this common sense reply. The truth is Chernobyl can never happen again, and scientists are completely all-knowing when they explain what can and can't happen.
- q1w2 4y ago
  Arguing with an anti-nuclear activist is indistiguishable to arguing with an anti-vax or climate change denier. They are the same people who opposed all GMO food products despite the science.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
kelnos 4y ago
> They're convinced Chernobyl can happen again Of course it can! It's almost certainly much less likely now, but I don't think anyone has presented convincing evidence that it's impossible that something like that could happen again. And that's a really big deal. Even if the risk of another Chernobyl is ridiculously low, another Chernobyl would be so bad that it's worth considering. Having said that, I do support nuclear energy, and wish there wasn't so much FUD spread about it. But let's not delude ourselves into believing there are no safety concerns, or that we've solved the waste storage/disposal problem.
- fsflover 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion_(psychology)
wolverine876 4y ago
> A lot of the anti-nuclear opinion is passionately opposed to scientific analysis. It's easy to disparage people who disagree with you (and if they disagree, they must be unscientific! They couldn't be difficult issues and serious concerns). It only poisons attempts to move forward and learn anything. Much of anti-nuclear energy opinion has been led by scientists and most of the more scientifically sophisticated people I know are very skeptical about nuclear power (including me). The disparagement makes it look like reactionary politics, not scientific interest - that is their modus operendi - and of course, the reactionary attempt to discredit anything progressive is currently focused on nuclear energy policy.
pvaldes 4y ago
> They're convinced Chernobyl can happen again Chernobyl has happened each single year since 1986. Has been swallowing money each single year since 1986. No exceptions. I'm really convinced that the problem will be there still in 2023. And turning much worse is also a possibility because s*t happens in a war-zone.

k__ 4y ago

The last time I heard a physicist evaluate nuclear, it didn't look like any notable improvements happened in the last 20 years.

hedora 4y ago
Well, maybe, but most nuclear reactor designs are at least 50 years out of date, and a lot of progress was made between 1970 and 2000.
neuronexmachina 4y ago
Do you have the source where you heard that? Also worth noting that Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island were all built 50-60 years ago.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Right. This is a bit like evaluating airline safety based on the design of Amelia Earhart's plane.

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

What "scientific" analysis has claimed "chernobyl can't happen again" ? It would be as ridiculous as someone claiming the new Airbus XXX model can't crash. Even analysis of the type "a chernobyl will happen once every XX years" are more political in nature than scientific, since you are assuming a stable society for decades to come (i.e. no degradation in the skill level of constructors or operators, etc. -- even foreign ones). Which, barring sudden miraculous discoveries in the area of Psychohistory, is basically entirely politics and outside the realm of science.

BurningFrog 4y ago
Chernobyl can't happen again because the awful design that made that failure possible is long ago abandoned. It's a bit like how the Airbus A380 can't crash like the Hindenburg airship did.
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  I'm quite sure that no one who asks "can chernobyl can happen again?" is actually interested in the response to "can chernobyl happen again _in exactly the same way_"?. This is malicious nitpicking. In the same way that I'm sure the victims of the next Airbus crash will be happy to know that "it didn't crash like the Hindenburg did".
  - knorker 4y ago
    Is it not malicious to scream "chernobyl!" willfully deceptively or willfully ignorantly confusing what can and cannot happen? More people die every single year from radiation in coal than have died in the entire history of nuclear power. Replacing all coal with nuclear would save more lives and health than fighting nuclear ever could, even in theory. And delaying coal to nuclear under the banner of "wind and solar maybe one day can help a bit" has blood on its hands. Every year coal is still here, instead of nuclear, is 100 years of death. If building powerplants (of any type) were instant, and solar were one year away, then we should STILL replace all coal with nuclear TODAY, to minimize harm. (in a spherical chickens in a vacuum sort of way) And not only do we not have enough solar, we don't even have a plan for energy storage for solar and wind. We have ideas, not a plan. So solar&wind replacing coal&nuclear is further away than fusion power, by multiples.
    - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
      To exemplify the difference between science and politics: - Nuclear is safer than coal: science (true or not, it's not the point) - We need to go all the way nuclear: politics. There's a million other things to consider, many of them don't even each into the realm of what is falsifiable (e.g international relations, fuel availability, who knows). _Even_ if nuclear was literally the safest method ever, it is literally still politics whether to use nuclear or not; after all, we sacrifice safety for convenience _many_ times, and good luck defining "convenience" in a scientific way. Another example: - Vaccines are safe and effective (scientific; true or not is not the point) - Vaccines are safe enough compared to the risk of catching the disease itself ("social" sciences; caveat emptor) - We should force everyone to vaccinate (politics). It does not matter if vaccines are safe, or not. It is still a political topic, not scientific. There are things like ethics, social vs individual rights, etc. that are hardly quantifiable much less scientific.

Patrol8394 4y ago

Let's talk Fukushima ?

trinovantes 4y ago
Issues with Fukushima that could've prevented the disaster were raised by engineers/scientists but were ignored for years by the government/politicians
- 8note 4y ago
  That's always going to happen though. The government doesn't always have attention and money to shower on nuclear plants.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  ...and what lessons can we draw from this?
  - trinovantes 4y ago
    Trust your nuclear scientists/engineers because they know what they're doing and are, in fact, not playing god
- YetAnotherNick 4y ago
  So? Anything could have been prevented on hindsight.
  - theshrike79 4y ago
    It's not hindsight when someone warns you beforehand.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      Given a large enough population, you can always in hindsight find someone who predicted the outcome.

hammock 4y ago

Thank you for this common sense reply. The truth is Chernobyl can never happen again, and scientists are completely all-knowing when they explain what can and can't happen.

q1w2 4y ago
Arguing with an anti-nuclear activist is indistiguishable to arguing with an anti-vax or climate change denier. They are the same people who opposed all GMO food products despite the science.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

kelnos 4y ago

> They're convinced Chernobyl can happen again Of course it can! It's almost certainly much less likely now, but I don't think anyone has presented convincing evidence that it's impossible that something like that could happen again. And that's a really big deal. Even if the risk of another Chernobyl is ridiculously low, another Chernobyl would be so bad that it's worth considering. Having said that, I do support nuclear energy, and wish there wasn't so much FUD spread about it. But let's not delude ourselves into believing there are no safety concerns, or that we've solved the waste storage/disposal problem.

fsflover 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion_(psychology)

wolverine876 4y ago

> A lot of the anti-nuclear opinion is passionately opposed to scientific analysis. It's easy to disparage people who disagree with you (and if they disagree, they must be unscientific! They couldn't be difficult issues and serious concerns). It only poisons attempts to move forward and learn anything. Much of anti-nuclear energy opinion has been led by scientists and most of the more scientifically sophisticated people I know are very skeptical about nuclear power (including me). The disparagement makes it look like reactionary politics, not scientific interest - that is their modus operendi - and of course, the reactionary attempt to discredit anything progressive is currently focused on nuclear energy policy.

pvaldes 4y ago

> They're convinced Chernobyl can happen again Chernobyl has happened each single year since 1986. Has been swallowing money each single year since 1986. No exceptions. I'm really convinced that the problem will be there still in 2023. And turning much worse is also a possibility because s*t happens in a war-zone.