2 ms·

If you use unexpected definition of "exposed" then it would be better to mention it directly... Yeah, obviously direct exposure to core kills. In the same way

If you use unexpected definition of "exposed" then it would be better to mention it directly... Yeah, obviously direct exposure to core kills. In the same way being pulled through hydropower turbine kills, and ending in furnace of gas/coal/wood heated power plant will kill you. Nuclear power still has vastly lower death ratio per produced energy than other ways generating power anyway. > I am not wrong, in a world dotted with miniature fission reactors, as the most extreme pro-fission people would like to favor. You would be still wrong. Building atom bomb factories doubling as power plants (Chernobyl design) in every city, and then deliberately triggering such catastrophe in every single one still is not getting this result. With miniature fission reactors - also not. You would not get "instantly fry us all to molten pulp" even in case of deliberate use of all nuclear weapons by omnicidal world government trying to murder as many people as possible.

smaudet 4y ago
Perhaps I am wrong to the degree of which we are doomed in various scenarios, but I am not wrong that serious effects would occur. My concern is - catastrophic chaining failure of nuclear plants, which I must assume you would not think would be a good thing, and would cause 'grave public harm', better? Not arguing over exactly how flesh melted the general populous is. If you remove "instantly fry us all to molten pulp" and replace with "fry us to molten pulp", that may be more true, I don't know that the general public will care much if it is 10% of the populous or 100% of the populous who is getting fried by radiation burns and subjected to carcinogenic materials which we have no methods to contain, effectively it might as well be everyone. > hydropower turbine kills, and ending in furnace of gas/coal/wood heated power plant Sure, but we can drain water, and we can put out fires (water, flame retardants). We can manage these systems. Nobody but the most crazy out-of-touch pro-nuclear person is going to try to claim that we can directly control neutrons, free particles, or the half lives of deadly carcinogens, or that we can filter them from our water supplies.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  I am primarily complaining about claim that everyone could die. That would not happen even in an outright full scale nuclear war. Exact way of dying (starvation, frying, flash frying, whatever) is not so important to me. > catastrophic chaining failure of nuclear plants That is also not going to happen. Even misdesigned soviet atomic bomb factory operating in insanely unsafe mode by incompetents managed to avoid this. > Nobody but the most crazy out-of-touch pro-nuclear person is going to try to claim that we can directly control neutrons, free particles, or the half lives of deadly carcinogens, or that we can filter them from our water supplies. The same applies to flood from collapsed dam or emitted CO2 or radiation emitted by coal power plants.

smaudet 4y ago

Perhaps I am wrong to the degree of which we are doomed in various scenarios, but I am not wrong that serious effects would occur. My concern is - catastrophic chaining failure of nuclear plants, which I must assume you would not think would be a good thing, and would cause 'grave public harm', better? Not arguing over exactly how flesh melted the general populous is. If you remove "instantly fry us all to molten pulp" and replace with "fry us to molten pulp", that may be more true, I don't know that the general public will care much if it is 10% of the populous or 100% of the populous who is getting fried by radiation burns and subjected to carcinogenic materials which we have no methods to contain, effectively it might as well be everyone. > hydropower turbine kills, and ending in furnace of gas/coal/wood heated power plant Sure, but we can drain water, and we can put out fires (water, flame retardants). We can manage these systems. Nobody but the most crazy out-of-touch pro-nuclear person is going to try to claim that we can directly control neutrons, free particles, or the half lives of deadly carcinogens, or that we can filter them from our water supplies.

matkoniecz 4y ago
I am primarily complaining about claim that everyone could die. That would not happen even in an outright full scale nuclear war. Exact way of dying (starvation, frying, flash frying, whatever) is not so important to me. > catastrophic chaining failure of nuclear plants That is also not going to happen. Even misdesigned soviet atomic bomb factory operating in insanely unsafe mode by incompetents managed to avoid this. > Nobody but the most crazy out-of-touch pro-nuclear person is going to try to claim that we can directly control neutrons, free particles, or the half lives of deadly carcinogens, or that we can filter them from our water supplies. The same applies to flood from collapsed dam or emitted CO2 or radiation emitted by coal power plants.