4 ms·
The difference is in the risk profile. The risks of coal power are dominated by the typical case. People have been living near coal plants for generations, the
by jltsiren 4y ago
The difference is in the risk profile.
The risks of coal power are dominated by the typical case. People have been living near coal plants for generations, they know what the risks mean in the real life, and they have generally found the risks acceptable.
Nuclear risks are dominated by rare disasters. Because most people have not experienced nuclear disasters near home, they don't know what it would mean in the real life. As the risks are unfamiliar, many people find them scary.
- astrange 4y ago> People have been living near coal plants for generations, they know what the risks mean in the real life, and they have generally found the risks acceptable. …honestly I'm like 100% sure they don't know what the risks are. Every time anyone does a study on air pollution it turns out the effects are even more horrible than we already thought it was. Like it gives you dementia and cancer.
- jltsiren 4y agoThat's why I mentioned "real life". People may not know the specific risks associated with specific causes, but they think they understand the overall risks of living with coal power. After all, they have already lived their lives with coal power, and they have seen many other people do so. If the quality of life has been acceptable, the risks must be acceptable as well, if there are no alternatives that are obviously better. On the other hand, people tend to overestimate unfamiliar risks. If you only hear about nuclear disasters (or earthquakes or hurricanes) in the news, it's easy to assume that the risks are more significant than they actually are.