3 ms·

> There is absolutely no indication that either one was the worst case You're trying to prove a negative using Chernobyl (a 50-year old design) as some kind of

> There is absolutely no indication that either one was the worst case You're trying to prove a negative using Chernobyl (a 50-year old design) as some kind of proof. Even with Chernobyl only 100 deaths are directly attributed to the disaster and there hasn't been any statistically observable rise in effects like cancer since. So, the greatest nuclear power plant disasters in human history caused ... fewer deaths than a single coal power plant in a big city. So yes. We will use them as examples of how safe nuclear power actually is.

mikeyouse 4y ago
This is like saying SARS1 was as bad as a modern pandemic could be... of course it's not. It was the worst we'd seen to that point but with some bad luck, it could be substantially worse. If you assume that the worst thing that has happened is the worst thing that could happen, you're going to be in for a very bad time. This isn't remotely to say that Nuclear is 'bad' or that we shouldn't build new plants, just that we should be clear-eyed about the actual tail risks while designing them.
- duxup 4y ago
  > it could be substantially worse You could say that infinitely. That doesn't help you avoid anything... could direct you to worse decisions. We use the incidents we know to inform ourselves about probability and etc. It's not just those incidents that are considered. And when more data comes along we use that too. That's how figuring things out works for just about everything.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > This is like saying SARS1 was as bad as a modern pandemic could be... of course it's not. Of course its not. Meaning "of course it's not like saying <insert false analogy here>". > but with some bad luck, it could be substantially worse. Funny how bad operators + most powerful recorded earthquake in Japan's history + tsunami isn't bad luck worth considering because there's always worse luck around the corner. > that we should be clear-eyed about the actual tail risks while designing them. We are: the greatest disasters involving nuclear power plants have shown that they are incredibly safe. And yet, the perception is "this is just waiting for bad luck to be so much worse". Strangely enough when we look at other sources of energy by deaths from normal operation (coal plants) or historical disasters (Banqjao Dam, 26 000 dead from flood, 145 000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless), somehow no one goes "oh you cannot look at those and state something".
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    Of course people look at those and state something... if you think that the Banqjao Dam failure is the worst dam failure that can happen, you haven't kept up on the news regarding the Mosul Dam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam#Renewed_stability_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam#Renewed_stability_co...) or Three Gorges (https://www.wsj.com/articles/worst-flooding-in-decades-raises-concerns-over-chinas-three-gorges-dam-11595337875 https://www.wsj.com/articles/worst-flooding-in-decades-raise...).. So new dam projects are built to avoid the obviously worse potential outcomes. I'm not sure how people are misunderstanding tail risks this much but NNT would be ashamed. "Regression to the tail" is super important when assessing long-term risk -- and likely points more in favor of nuclear plants due to the insanely disruptive tail risk that climate change represents. But "our repeated accidents didn't end up being too bad" isn't the way to assess them.. acknowledging that the accidents resulted in thousand-mile exclusion zones, but limited loss of life is important but that should directly inform the siting of new plants and the operation of existing ones (and why it's a good thing Indian Point is shutting down).
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      And yet I don't hear anyone look at those and say "oh no, you shouldn't judge by the past, it can always be worse" :-\ > But "our repeated accidents didn't end up being too bad" isn't the way to assess them It's a valid way to assess them. > that should directly inform the siting of new plants and the operation of existing ones What makes you think the new constructions don't take that into consideration? What makes you keep saying "no you shouldn't say itself because earthquake+tsunami+bad operators isn't bad luck enough, there's always worse luck around the corner"?
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > It was the worst we'd seen to that point but with some bad luck, it could be substantially worse. As we learned the hard way with SARS 2: Coronavirus Boogaloo.
notahacker 4y ago
> Even with Chernobyl only 100 deaths are directly attributed to the disaster and there hasn't been any statistically observable rise in effects like cancer since. The trouble with taking the position that only 100 people were killed by Chernobyl and everything else is just estimates, is that holding such a position in good faith means chalking off similar back-of-the envelope estimates for deaths caused by exposure to coal plant emissions...
- tuatoru 4y ago
  We can see the statistics for COPD, and control for other factors. We can see the statistics for cancers, and control for other factors.
pvaldes 4y ago
> Even with Chernobyl only 100 deaths are directly attributed to the disaster It was the same liquidator dying 60000 times. Just one death, but slipped in a banana skin and then fell from a window. Put it in the box next to "Holomodor was not a genocide", "No hospital has been bombed", "it is just a special operation" and "we always tell the truth and never hide anything inconvenient". > and there hasn't been any statistically observable rise in effects like cancer since. That lie was easy to debunk... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30137557/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30137557/

mikeyouse 4y ago

This is like saying SARS1 was as bad as a modern pandemic could be... of course it's not. It was the worst we'd seen to that point but with some bad luck, it could be substantially worse. If you assume that the worst thing that has happened is the worst thing that could happen, you're going to be in for a very bad time. This isn't remotely to say that Nuclear is 'bad' or that we shouldn't build new plants, just that we should be clear-eyed about the actual tail risks while designing them.

duxup 4y ago
> it could be substantially worse You could say that infinitely. That doesn't help you avoid anything... could direct you to worse decisions. We use the incidents we know to inform ourselves about probability and etc. It's not just those incidents that are considered. And when more data comes along we use that too. That's how figuring things out works for just about everything.
dmitriid 4y ago
> This is like saying SARS1 was as bad as a modern pandemic could be... of course it's not. Of course its not. Meaning "of course it's not like saying <insert false analogy here>". > but with some bad luck, it could be substantially worse. Funny how bad operators + most powerful recorded earthquake in Japan's history + tsunami isn't bad luck worth considering because there's always worse luck around the corner. > that we should be clear-eyed about the actual tail risks while designing them. We are: the greatest disasters involving nuclear power plants have shown that they are incredibly safe. And yet, the perception is "this is just waiting for bad luck to be so much worse". Strangely enough when we look at other sources of energy by deaths from normal operation (coal plants) or historical disasters (Banqjao Dam, 26 000 dead from flood, 145 000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless), somehow no one goes "oh you cannot look at those and state something".
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  Of course people look at those and state something... if you think that the Banqjao Dam failure is the worst dam failure that can happen, you haven't kept up on the news regarding the Mosul Dam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam#Renewed_stability_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam#Renewed_stability_co...) or Three Gorges (https://www.wsj.com/articles/worst-flooding-in-decades-raises-concerns-over-chinas-three-gorges-dam-11595337875 https://www.wsj.com/articles/worst-flooding-in-decades-raise...).. So new dam projects are built to avoid the obviously worse potential outcomes. I'm not sure how people are misunderstanding tail risks this much but NNT would be ashamed. "Regression to the tail" is super important when assessing long-term risk -- and likely points more in favor of nuclear plants due to the insanely disruptive tail risk that climate change represents. But "our repeated accidents didn't end up being too bad" isn't the way to assess them.. acknowledging that the accidents resulted in thousand-mile exclusion zones, but limited loss of life is important but that should directly inform the siting of new plants and the operation of existing ones (and why it's a good thing Indian Point is shutting down).
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    And yet I don't hear anyone look at those and say "oh no, you shouldn't judge by the past, it can always be worse" :-\ > But "our repeated accidents didn't end up being too bad" isn't the way to assess them It's a valid way to assess them. > that should directly inform the siting of new plants and the operation of existing ones What makes you think the new constructions don't take that into consideration? What makes you keep saying "no you shouldn't say itself because earthquake+tsunami+bad operators isn't bad luck enough, there's always worse luck around the corner"?
yellowapple 4y ago
> It was the worst we'd seen to that point but with some bad luck, it could be substantially worse. As we learned the hard way with SARS 2: Coronavirus Boogaloo.

notahacker 4y ago

> Even with Chernobyl only 100 deaths are directly attributed to the disaster and there hasn't been any statistically observable rise in effects like cancer since. The trouble with taking the position that only 100 people were killed by Chernobyl and everything else is just estimates, is that holding such a position in good faith means chalking off similar back-of-the envelope estimates for deaths caused by exposure to coal plant emissions...

tuatoru 4y ago
We can see the statistics for COPD, and control for other factors. We can see the statistics for cancers, and control for other factors.

pvaldes 4y ago

> Even with Chernobyl only 100 deaths are directly attributed to the disaster It was the same liquidator dying 60000 times. Just one death, but slipped in a banana skin and then fell from a window. Put it in the box next to "Holomodor was not a genocide", "No hospital has been bombed", "it is just a special operation" and "we always tell the truth and never hide anything inconvenient". > and there hasn't been any statistically observable rise in effects like cancer since. That lie was easy to debunk... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30137557/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30137557/