6 ms·

The problem with all those assumptions is that the "radiological harm" is cumulative and it can accumulate in unexpected ways which aren't random. For example

The problem with all those assumptions is that the "radiological harm" is cumulative and it can accumulate in unexpected ways which aren't random. For example some isotopes enrich in certain organs and then do their damage for a long time. And there's no good framework for treating or checking "acceptable" risks for example with radioactive dirt or whatever. Russian soldiers dug trenches in the hot zone in Tschernobyl just this year. Do we expect people to remember these sites for the next few millenia? The same goes for any potential spill of radioactive material, and that's why long term storage is such a difficult problem. We don't want any to get out, because we'll never be able to tell who gets what dose. And "nuclear advocates" like to say coal, preferrably burned in the least effective or safe way, is the only alternative to nuclear power. Which it's not, of course. They like to forget that replacing coal (and other fossil fuels) means an extreme scaleup in access to radioactive material, thereby scaling up the risks. Especially those from bad intentions, but accidents can't be calculated either. They like to forget that while not that many people die even in major accidents, that's just because a large area is evacuated and cleaned up. At horrendous cost. The Fukushima cleanup may reach a trillion Dollar in cost, btw.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
Actually it's the anti-nuclear crowd that frames pro-nuclear people in a way that pretends it's only coal or nuclear. The reality is that we are 80% fossil and biofuel and need everything that is at least 10x better on climate and health, which includes major expansion of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, geothermal. The amount of energy transition we need is nearly unfathomable. To tie our hand behind our back because we are afraid of nuclear in this race is unwise. Antinuclear scare mongerers are forcing the Fukushima people to purify water so far below the natural radioactivity of seawater (which does contain slightly radioactive potassium and uranium) that it's truly ridiculous. That drives up costs unecessarily. Anyway what's the cost of failing to solve climate change or the cost of killing 8 million people per year with combustion? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-really-ok-if-japan-dumps-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-the-ocean/?sh=68b8d045b298 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-reall...
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Now it sounds like "fossil and biofuel" is only coal. Not quite getting this. We should all be afraid of nuclear power. The risks are uncalculateable. Whoever thinks he can calculate the risks is delusional. It's not just that "impossible" accidents have happened a bit too often in the past. The bigger problem is that Humans are not that predictable and any nuclear waste stored is in danger of getting blown up by some army or warlord in the next few milennia. Same for active power plants, though for a shorter period. Ukraine is having this problem right now. What are the chances that Putin causes an incident with one of their plants? You can never say zero, and the situation is very fluid. For any reasonable estimation of risk, you'd have to assume a couple of decades of peace in your region: No war, civil war or major political upheaval. Some are willing to make that bet. I'm not, for any country.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    Fossil and biofuel are the ones that kill 8M per year. Not just coal. That nice smell of wood burning in the air is pretty deadly, sadly enough. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_2 https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_2
    - GekkePrutser 4y ago
      Death tolls aren't the only impact of a nuclear disaster. Denial of land use for tens to hundreds of years, cleanup costs, mutations, denial of water supplies if it reaches ground water (the prevention of which was one of the things that did work out well at Chernobyl). All with cleanup costs a magnitude higher than those of industrial spills. We're all going to die eventually of something and of those 8M many would have died soon after of other causes. Look at how many people still smoke packets full of hazardous fume sticks on a daily basis. That's how much we care about that risk.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        The difference being that smoking is a personal decision and living near a nuclear power plant isn't. Especially if we were to scale it up to replace fossil fuels. which would mean on the order of ten times as much sites and risk.

acidburnNSA 4y ago

Actually it's the anti-nuclear crowd that frames pro-nuclear people in a way that pretends it's only coal or nuclear. The reality is that we are 80% fossil and biofuel and need everything that is at least 10x better on climate and health, which includes major expansion of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, geothermal. The amount of energy transition we need is nearly unfathomable. To tie our hand behind our back because we are afraid of nuclear in this race is unwise. Antinuclear scare mongerers are forcing the Fukushima people to purify water so far below the natural radioactivity of seawater (which does contain slightly radioactive potassium and uranium) that it's truly ridiculous. That drives up costs unecessarily. Anyway what's the cost of failing to solve climate change or the cost of killing 8 million people per year with combustion? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-really-ok-if-japan-dumps-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-the-ocean/?sh=68b8d045b298 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-reall...

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Now it sounds like "fossil and biofuel" is only coal. Not quite getting this. We should all be afraid of nuclear power. The risks are uncalculateable. Whoever thinks he can calculate the risks is delusional. It's not just that "impossible" accidents have happened a bit too often in the past. The bigger problem is that Humans are not that predictable and any nuclear waste stored is in danger of getting blown up by some army or warlord in the next few milennia. Same for active power plants, though for a shorter period. Ukraine is having this problem right now. What are the chances that Putin causes an incident with one of their plants? You can never say zero, and the situation is very fluid. For any reasonable estimation of risk, you'd have to assume a couple of decades of peace in your region: No war, civil war or major political upheaval. Some are willing to make that bet. I'm not, for any country.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  Fossil and biofuel are the ones that kill 8M per year. Not just coal. That nice smell of wood burning in the air is pretty deadly, sadly enough. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_2 https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_2
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    Death tolls aren't the only impact of a nuclear disaster. Denial of land use for tens to hundreds of years, cleanup costs, mutations, denial of water supplies if it reaches ground water (the prevention of which was one of the things that did work out well at Chernobyl). All with cleanup costs a magnitude higher than those of industrial spills. We're all going to die eventually of something and of those 8M many would have died soon after of other causes. Look at how many people still smoke packets full of hazardous fume sticks on a daily basis. That's how much we care about that risk.
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      The difference being that smoking is a personal decision and living near a nuclear power plant isn't. Especially if we were to scale it up to replace fossil fuels. which would mean on the order of ten times as much sites and risk.