3 ms·

Nuclear is less dangerous than people imagine. Studies on survivors of the atomic bombing of Japan https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4981260/ https:/

Nuclear is less dangerous than people imagine. Studies on survivors of the atomic bombing of Japan https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4981260/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4981260/ have shown that exposure to 1Gy of radiation (the equivalent of receiving ten thousand chest xrays simultaneously) only reduces lifespan by 1.3 years on average, and 0.1Gy of radiation only reduces it by 0.12 years.

93po 4y ago
Carbon producing power generation kills literally millions a year. Nuclear has killed 1 person in my living memory.
- rob74 4y ago
  citation needed - and whenever I read this claim, I wonder: if a country is incapable of regulating its coal plants well enough so they don't kill people via pollution, will it be capable of regulating its nuclear plants well enough so they don't blow up?
  - 93po 4y ago
    I feel like this is a poor comparison. By default coal is going to pollute and there's very little that can be done in an economical way to counteract this. There are plenty of countries that have banned or have concrete plans to phase out coal, which I would consider the same as regulating against coal plants killing people.
- nine_k 4y ago
  In the Chernobyl incident, about 200 first responders died from acute radiation effects in a short while. Still likely fewer than the number of deaths in coal mines; like a decade of mining fatalities in the US alone: https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp
  - 93po 4y ago
    > in my living memory. I wasn't alive then
janef0421 4y ago
Also, that is for acute radiation. Humans, and most other animals, appear to be far more resilient to continuous exposure to lower levels of radiation, which is the more common outcome for a major nuclear power accident.
kaushikc 4y ago
The fear for nuclear power is a manufactured one because there is almost no technological difference in the capabilities required to use nuclear power for energy and for weapons. Having many nuclear capable countries would mean a major shift in geopolitical situation of the planet, it would end up in choice of catastrophic destruction or permanent peace. I believe that countries that are already nuclear capable would always prefer to keep their advantage while using overblown fear propaganda about nuclear energy to create a deterrent for their population about nuclear power in order to maintain the status quo especially during difficult times.
astrobe_ 4y ago
Perhaps, but the real reality behind this 1.3 years figure is that someone somewhere dies too early. That's something people won't easily accept - especially if we talk about cancer, one of the most feared diseases. It's like saying, you can let your children go alone in the streets, stats show that it "only" reduces their lives by 1.3 years in average. Ain't gonna fly with any parent. Yeah, that's emotional arguments. But feeling safe and good is also valuable. That being said, it seems that we have no choice but rely on nuclear power until we find a viable alternative.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  That wasn't the point of the argument. The point was that even if you hit them with the nuclear bomb the effects are not nearly as large as what people imagine with a nuclear reactor event. So people think of nuclear reactor accident as if it was like 10x nuclear bombs when in effect its barley shows up in the data at all.
  - astrobe_ 4y ago
    I think you imagine what people imagine. People are very well aware of what a nuclear meltdown means. They have Chernobyl and Fukushima as well-documented cases: populations forced to move from their home permanently, contamination of the food supply chain that basically ruins the economic activity of the region, and the extreme difficulty to prove that your health issues are long-terms effect of the disaster.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Yes and most of those things are pure misinformation. East Germans panicking about nuclear mushrooms is simply imagination and misunderstanding of the science.

93po 4y ago

Carbon producing power generation kills literally millions a year. Nuclear has killed 1 person in my living memory.

rob74 4y ago
citation needed - and whenever I read this claim, I wonder: if a country is incapable of regulating its coal plants well enough so they don't kill people via pollution, will it be capable of regulating its nuclear plants well enough so they don't blow up?
- 93po 4y ago
  I feel like this is a poor comparison. By default coal is going to pollute and there's very little that can be done in an economical way to counteract this. There are plenty of countries that have banned or have concrete plans to phase out coal, which I would consider the same as regulating against coal plants killing people.
nine_k 4y ago
In the Chernobyl incident, about 200 first responders died from acute radiation effects in a short while. Still likely fewer than the number of deaths in coal mines; like a decade of mining fatalities in the US alone: https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp
- 93po 4y ago
  > in my living memory. I wasn't alive then

janef0421 4y ago

Also, that is for acute radiation. Humans, and most other animals, appear to be far more resilient to continuous exposure to lower levels of radiation, which is the more common outcome for a major nuclear power accident.

kaushikc 4y ago

The fear for nuclear power is a manufactured one because there is almost no technological difference in the capabilities required to use nuclear power for energy and for weapons. Having many nuclear capable countries would mean a major shift in geopolitical situation of the planet, it would end up in choice of catastrophic destruction or permanent peace. I believe that countries that are already nuclear capable would always prefer to keep their advantage while using overblown fear propaganda about nuclear energy to create a deterrent for their population about nuclear power in order to maintain the status quo especially during difficult times.

astrobe_ 4y ago

Perhaps, but the real reality behind this 1.3 years figure is that someone somewhere dies too early. That's something people won't easily accept - especially if we talk about cancer, one of the most feared diseases. It's like saying, you can let your children go alone in the streets, stats show that it "only" reduces their lives by 1.3 years in average. Ain't gonna fly with any parent. Yeah, that's emotional arguments. But feeling safe and good is also valuable. That being said, it seems that we have no choice but rely on nuclear power until we find a viable alternative.

panick21_ 4y ago
That wasn't the point of the argument. The point was that even if you hit them with the nuclear bomb the effects are not nearly as large as what people imagine with a nuclear reactor event. So people think of nuclear reactor accident as if it was like 10x nuclear bombs when in effect its barley shows up in the data at all.
- astrobe_ 4y ago
  I think you imagine what people imagine. People are very well aware of what a nuclear meltdown means. They have Chernobyl and Fukushima as well-documented cases: populations forced to move from their home permanently, contamination of the food supply chain that basically ruins the economic activity of the region, and the extreme difficulty to prove that your health issues are long-terms effect of the disaster.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Yes and most of those things are pure misinformation. East Germans panicking about nuclear mushrooms is simply imagination and misunderstanding of the science.