16 ms·
The existing technology isn't actually that safe. The safe technology isn't that existing, actually. The "population" tends to not believe claims about certain
by bayesian_horse 4y ago
The existing technology isn't actually that safe. The safe technology isn't that existing, actually.
The "population" tends to not believe claims about certain accidents being impossible if they keep happening. The safety of nuclear power is a fantasy. No, the track record is not enough. Given the enormous potential for catastrophe and the timespans for nuclear power project, questioning assumptions like "nobody is going to shoot rockets and shells around the plant" is entirely valid.
- asdff 4y agoOTOH if you used bayesian reasoning like your username suggests, you'd understand that nuclear energy is the safest form of energy there is. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- bayesian_horse 4y agoAnd that's exactly the wrong reasoning in this case. Because you want to predict the future from the past, over a really long time span and with the adverse events being extremely catastrophic. Just read up on how the Fukushima cleanup is going and how the cost estimates have risen... Bayesian reasoning would require you to argue about priors. You want to take priors from the past. Fine and dandy, when trying to predict the weather or even where the stock market is going. But when talking about how likely it is that something blows up and contaminates a huge area, maybe there are higher standards. And philosophizing about the average is all nice and well, until you happen to live near the site of an accident. And in Ukraine the assumption "nobody is going to shoot around a nuclear plant", which most assurance of nuclear safety depend upon, doesn't hold anymore.