5 ms·

You can still build nuclear reactors, they are not banned. But you want to build them ignoring safety lessons. The aeronautical industry is improving safety al

You can still build nuclear reactors, they are not banned. But you want to build them ignoring safety lessons. The aeronautical industry is improving safety all the time, and accidents prompt new safety measures. They don't scoof accidents without analysis and adaptation, saying "if you want to fly you must accept that some 787-MAX are crashing down from time to time, but still safer than traveling by car, we did the math". No, they landed the plane and adapted.

troupo 3y ago
> But you want to build them ignoring safety lessons. No, I don't > The aeronautical industry is improving safety all the time, and accidents prompt new safety measures. Yes, they do. Note: we're still flying. The number of aircraft is increasing. And we don't turn aircraft into boogey men. Had aircraft been treated the way nuclear plants are treated, we'd stop building most of them in the early 80s, and the construction of each new one would be met with strong opposition and campaigns to shut the entire thing down.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  You're ignoring the fact that humans generally do not think in terms of expected value, nor should they. An improbable outcome of widespread catastrophe (irradiating a million people) is and should be treated as something worse than a more-probable outcome of localized catastrophe (plane crash). You can't just do "loss x probability = cost".
  - troupo 3y ago
    > An improbable outcome of widespread catastrophe (irradiating a million people) is and should be treated as something worse than a more-probable outcome of localized catastrophe (plane crash). Quoting myself again: Imagine if any other tech had the same fear-mongering. We'd never have a single hydroelectric plant after Banqiao dam failure that killed anywhere from 25 000 to 240 000 and left 11 million people homeless.
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      Fair about the dam. If that happened in the West then yes, it'd change things. The biggest dam failures in North America for example have never been that big. And you'd surely never get a major new dam built today anywhere near any kind of populated area in the USA. Also, it's worth noting that nuclear disasters remain dangerous for amounts of time ranging from "one generation" to "longer than human history so far", adding an extra element of catastrophe.
- zarzavat 3y ago
  The crucial difference is that people consent to get on a plane. There are quite a few people who are afraid of flying, so afraid that they refuse to fly. That’s of course their prerogative. The problem with nuclear power stations is that when they have serious accidents they don’t just affect the people who wanted to build them, they affect everybody, including the people who didn’t want them to be built, and even people in neighboring countries who didn’t even get a vote on it - depending on which way the wind blows. So the nuclear power station has to be built as safely as the most fearful person demands.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > The problem with nuclear power stations is that when they have serious accidents they don’t just affect the people who wanted to build them, they affect everybody Why do we keep building hydroelectric plants (and dams in general)? Why do we keep building coal plants which are more radioactive than niclear plants, and are often located in densely populated areas? Why don't you apply the same logic to other things?
    - Gwypaas 3y ago
      We are not? We are building renewables where the risks all come from the people working on the equipment. Fitting the analogy of airline safety nicely.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    And yet nobody consented to climate change. I certainly didn't. They also don't consent to PM2.5 from uncovered coal trains running through residential areas. Nobody consents to being downstream of a hydroelectric dam...
    - zarzavat 3y ago
      I wasn’t saying that we can’t have nuclear power at all. I was saying that we can’t nuclear power that is as risky as aviation. If that makes nuclear unviable, then so be it. Getting on an aircraft involves taking a risk. You may die. People die every year because they boarded an aircraft. The risk is small, but it’s not zero. We are okay with people taking this risk because they chose to do it. For nuclear power, small is not good enough, the risk of a serious incident such as Chernobyl has to be effectively zero. This is very expensive. Hydroelectric is not really comparable, if you are not happy living downstream of a hydro plant then you can move somewhere else. Nuclear fails in unpredictable ways. When Chernobyl happened, the whole of Europe held its breath to see which way the fallout would blow. The only way to escape the risk is heavy regulation or bans.
- FeepingCreature 3y ago
  Had nuclear plants been treated the way airplanes are treated, any fault in one plant would lead to steps to redesign all of them, present and future, to definitively avoid this fault; and frankly, the fact that this is not being done is such a massive fuckup that it's making me more anti-nuclear. My pro-nuclear position is based on an assumption of baseline competence! This doesn't seem to actually be the case!
  - snovv_crash 3y ago
    Incorrect, old aircraft are grandfathered into new regulations. This is why it's so hard to get the GA industry to switch away from leaded avgas, because it's almost impossible to certify new engines.
    - FeepingCreature 3y ago
      Does this apply to safety issues as well?

troupo 3y ago

> But you want to build them ignoring safety lessons. No, I don't > The aeronautical industry is improving safety all the time, and accidents prompt new safety measures. Yes, they do. Note: we're still flying. The number of aircraft is increasing. And we don't turn aircraft into boogey men. Had aircraft been treated the way nuclear plants are treated, we'd stop building most of them in the early 80s, and the construction of each new one would be met with strong opposition and campaigns to shut the entire thing down.

nerdponx 3y ago
You're ignoring the fact that humans generally do not think in terms of expected value, nor should they. An improbable outcome of widespread catastrophe (irradiating a million people) is and should be treated as something worse than a more-probable outcome of localized catastrophe (plane crash). You can't just do "loss x probability = cost".
- troupo 3y ago
  > An improbable outcome of widespread catastrophe (irradiating a million people) is and should be treated as something worse than a more-probable outcome of localized catastrophe (plane crash). Quoting myself again: Imagine if any other tech had the same fear-mongering. We'd never have a single hydroelectric plant after Banqiao dam failure that killed anywhere from 25 000 to 240 000 and left 11 million people homeless.
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    Fair about the dam. If that happened in the West then yes, it'd change things. The biggest dam failures in North America for example have never been that big. And you'd surely never get a major new dam built today anywhere near any kind of populated area in the USA. Also, it's worth noting that nuclear disasters remain dangerous for amounts of time ranging from "one generation" to "longer than human history so far", adding an extra element of catastrophe.
zarzavat 3y ago
The crucial difference is that people consent to get on a plane. There are quite a few people who are afraid of flying, so afraid that they refuse to fly. That’s of course their prerogative. The problem with nuclear power stations is that when they have serious accidents they don’t just affect the people who wanted to build them, they affect everybody, including the people who didn’t want them to be built, and even people in neighboring countries who didn’t even get a vote on it - depending on which way the wind blows. So the nuclear power station has to be built as safely as the most fearful person demands.
- troupo 3y ago
  > The problem with nuclear power stations is that when they have serious accidents they don’t just affect the people who wanted to build them, they affect everybody Why do we keep building hydroelectric plants (and dams in general)? Why do we keep building coal plants which are more radioactive than niclear plants, and are often located in densely populated areas? Why don't you apply the same logic to other things?
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    We are not? We are building renewables where the risks all come from the people working on the equipment. Fitting the analogy of airline safety nicely.
- XorNot 3y ago
  And yet nobody consented to climate change. I certainly didn't. They also don't consent to PM2.5 from uncovered coal trains running through residential areas. Nobody consents to being downstream of a hydroelectric dam...
  - zarzavat 3y ago
    I wasn’t saying that we can’t have nuclear power at all. I was saying that we can’t nuclear power that is as risky as aviation. If that makes nuclear unviable, then so be it. Getting on an aircraft involves taking a risk. You may die. People die every year because they boarded an aircraft. The risk is small, but it’s not zero. We are okay with people taking this risk because they chose to do it. For nuclear power, small is not good enough, the risk of a serious incident such as Chernobyl has to be effectively zero. This is very expensive. Hydroelectric is not really comparable, if you are not happy living downstream of a hydro plant then you can move somewhere else. Nuclear fails in unpredictable ways. When Chernobyl happened, the whole of Europe held its breath to see which way the fallout would blow. The only way to escape the risk is heavy regulation or bans.
FeepingCreature 3y ago
Had nuclear plants been treated the way airplanes are treated, any fault in one plant would lead to steps to redesign all of them, present and future, to definitively avoid this fault; and frankly, the fact that this is not being done is such a massive fuckup that it's making me more anti-nuclear. My pro-nuclear position is based on an assumption of baseline competence! This doesn't seem to actually be the case!
- snovv_crash 3y ago
  Incorrect, old aircraft are grandfathered into new regulations. This is why it's so hard to get the GA industry to switch away from leaded avgas, because it's almost impossible to certify new engines.
  - FeepingCreature 3y ago
    Does this apply to safety issues as well?