4 ms·

Note that they don't use 100 as the Chernobyl deaths estimate, they use 433. While I think that is very optimistic, there are very valid concerns with estimates

Note that they don't use 100 as the Chernobyl deaths estimate, they use 433. While I think that is very optimistic, there are very valid concerns with estimates made using the linear no-threshold model (which they discuss). And they used 2314 for Fukushima, which Wikipedia [1] agrees with and ascribes largely to the evacuation efforts. I'm not claiming it as a 100% accurate source, as it was just what I found with a quick google - I agree using a range of data points for each energy source would be more rigorous. Do you have a better source that uses ranges for the different energy options? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

simon_000666 4y ago
I think the gotcha here is they are saying : safer === less deaths. If you purely want the safety of power sources at a minimum you have to look at deaths, unnecessary human suffering and also potential for long term deaths & suffering. I think another thing that I find missing from the article is acknowledgement of the long term challenge of safely storing nuclear waste and the potential loss of life/suffering it could cause in the future. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster
- SECProto 4y ago
  Seeing how debatable the issue of deaths caused by actual nuclear disasters is (varying from 400 to 60000 for Chernobyl), I can't imagine how little agreement two parties could have on the comparative amounts of human suffering caused by different energy sources. You would have to encompass land use changes, air quality, long term statistical health outcomes, respiratory illness, wildlife impacts, the list goes on ad infinitum.. I don't think that Mayak is relevant, as it is a secretive, poorly regulated nuclear weapons production facility. Similarly, the impacts of Therac-25 [1] patients or the Goiania Incident[2] don't get counted against nuclear energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

simon_000666 4y ago

I think the gotcha here is they are saying : safer === less deaths. If you purely want the safety of power sources at a minimum you have to look at deaths, unnecessary human suffering and also potential for long term deaths & suffering. I think another thing that I find missing from the article is acknowledgement of the long term challenge of safely storing nuclear waste and the potential loss of life/suffering it could cause in the future. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

SECProto 4y ago
Seeing how debatable the issue of deaths caused by actual nuclear disasters is (varying from 400 to 60000 for Chernobyl), I can't imagine how little agreement two parties could have on the comparative amounts of human suffering caused by different energy sources. You would have to encompass land use changes, air quality, long term statistical health outcomes, respiratory illness, wildlife impacts, the list goes on ad infinitum.. I don't think that Mayak is relevant, as it is a secretive, poorly regulated nuclear weapons production facility. Similarly, the impacts of Therac-25 [1] patients or the Goiania Incident[2] don't get counted against nuclear energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident