4 ms·

Nuclear energy is so insanely safe that of the three worst accidents in its history, only one actually killed people and its on the order of hundreds of people.

by evilos 3y ago

Nuclear energy is so insanely safe that of the three worst accidents in its history, only one actually killed people and its on the order of hundreds of people. Hydro dam failures have killed on the order of hundreds of thousands but no one is trying to ban hydro. Meanwhile, lawnmowers kill over a hundred Americans a year. Nuclear energy is safe by any reasonable standard. The land around Chernobyl and Fukushima are for the most part usable today. It is only because we cling to the unscientific LNT standard that anyone thinks otherwise. Thankfully the misconduct and fraud that led to this state of affairs is becoming more known thanks to the work of Dr. Edward Calabrese.

natmaka 3y ago
The real amount of victims of nuclear accidents is hotly disputed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... Fukushima: more than 2200 victims from the evacuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident Hydro victims are mostly those of the Banqiao disaster, which is a fluke. In similar conditions anything would go boom with way less latency. It took place during the Chinese Cultural Revolution when most people were busy with the "revolution" which began in 1966 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure ) A well-placed expert whistle-blowing was totally ignored and even punished https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#Whistle-blower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#Whist... This Revolution followed the "Great Leap Forward", with famines and millions victims. Moreover all this came after a civil war and violent Japanese invasion, during which dams were bombed, causing "massive flooding in Henan" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era ) In such a context an otherwise avoidable catastrophe may happen. Then a huge typhoon closed the case ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Nina_(1975) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Nina_(1975) ) Predicting and adverting this catastrophe was possible, but given such a context nobody was able to do so. One may imagine what an active nuclear reactor would become/trigger in such a context.
- evilos 3y ago
  Ah, the infamous NYAS hit job. It wasn't even peer reviewed, yet it was published on behalf of a supposedly scientific community. That should tell you everything you need to know. Meanwhile, the UN Scientific Commissions and Harvard/Kyiv medical studies have found no increase in cancers due to Chernobyl. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ The Fukushima evacuation was wholly unnecessary and was only done because of the illogical fear of radiation that is spread by anti nuke orgs. That blood is on the hands of those who uphold and spread these lies.
  - natmaka 3y ago
    This book is an analysis of scientific literature, and the authors pedigrees seem convincing to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment#Authors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... Most authors of negative critics are authors of reports this book criticized, and other ones are weirdos. The book's authors answered to all critics. One of the critics is Monty Charles. His own work, done for the UNSCEAR (a pro-nuke UN agency) in 2006, is heavily criticized in the book. He then criticized this book. Another critic was published by Mona Dreicer, who worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (another UN pro-nuke agency) and the book criticized her work. Another one is M. Balonov, long-time contributor of reports published by UN-agencies, and the book criticizes his work. S. Jargin, another author of a negative review, sees flaws in each and every publication criticizing a powerful industry. For example asbestos is in his opinion not a concern and its use unduly prohibited ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_mesothelioma_and_lung_cancer_a_comment https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_... ) His 'debate' with Rosamund Katz and Janette Sherman is surrealistic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278732482_Who_Is_Afraid_of_Volume_1181_of_the_New_York_Academy_of_Sciences_Under_Threat_the_Nuclear_Establishment_Plays_Dirty https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278732482_Who_Is_Af... The UN is notoriously pro-nuke, and the UNSCEAR only composed of nuclear-energy related nations (exploiting reactors, extracting uranium...). About the WHO: http://independentwho.org/ http://independentwho.org/
natmaka 3y ago
LNT: the controversy rages over... in each direction. See for example: https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/bca https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/bca
- evilos 3y ago
  It really doesn't. Even the BEIR radiation safety council has had to admit recently that LNT has no scientific basis. (They refuse to stop using it out of 'an overabundance of caution'). And this is the institution that basically started and promoted the LNT way of thinking. We know the basic mechanisms of cancer, DNA damage. We also know that on average each cell in the human body experiences around 10,000-50,000 single strand breaks per day due to... Cellular respiration, ie Oxygen. This fact alone kills LNT because in order to take LNT at face value you have to assume that radiation damage is cumulative and never repaired. If that were true, we'd all be dead.
  - natmaka 3y ago
    Yes, the dose rate (and type of exposure, bioaccumulation of radioisotopes...) is one of (if not the) key parameter. As for its role the document I referenced seems pretty convincing to me.
goldenkey 3y ago
Many accidents have happened, most never heard of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accidents Hell, Hisashi Ouchi's death could just been handed down by a medieval like Ivan the Terrible.
- evilos 3y ago
  Someone burned to death atop a wind turbine. Is this a reason why wind turbines should be banned? Of course not. What matters is costs vs benefits and nuclear is just as safe if not safer than wind/solar energy per TWh.
cedws 3y ago
> Nuclear energy is so insanely safe that of the three worst accidents in its history, only one actually killed people and its on the order of hundreds of people You're leaving out the cancer and birth defects part for generations to come. Considering how few reactors there are in the world, I'd say the failure rate is unacceptably high. A single failure is enough to contaminate an area for hundreds and thousands of years.
- letitbeirie 3y ago
  > A single failure is enough to contaminate an area for hundreds and thousands of years. A single coal seam fire can do that too. A dam failure can even render an area uninhabitable forever. Nuclear isn't quite as green as many of its advocates claim but its environmental skeletons in the closet aren't born out of plant accidents (which are few, far between, and generally well contained in Western plant designs), they're born out of the chemical horror show that is the rest of the uranium fuel cycle.
  - natmaka 3y ago
    > A single coal seam fire Nobody wants coal anymore, this is about renewables vs. nuclear. > A dam failure can even render an area uninhabitable forever Source?
- evilos 3y ago
  That is complete nonsense. The UN Scientific Commission, Harvard Medical School, Kyiv University found no evidence for increased cancer after Chernobyl. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ Radiation simply isn't as dangerous as everyone has been led to believe. We live in a radioactive world and the most basic aspects of our biology is designed to deal with it. Even in a hypothetical world with zero radiation, every single one of your cells on average experiences between ten thousand and fifty thousand DNA breaks a day. Because of the Oxygen our cells need to produce energy. You have to be exposed to significant amounts of radiation before you start to even approach the damage from normal wear and tear of life.

by evilos 3y ago

natmaka 3y ago

The real amount of victims of nuclear accidents is hotly disputed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... Fukushima: more than 2200 victims from the evacuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident Hydro victims are mostly those of the Banqiao disaster, which is a fluke. In similar conditions anything would go boom with way less latency. It took place during the Chinese Cultural Revolution when most people were busy with the "revolution" which began in 1966 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure ) A well-placed expert whistle-blowing was totally ignored and even punished https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#Whistle-blower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#Whist... This Revolution followed the "Great Leap Forward", with famines and millions victims. Moreover all this came after a civil war and violent Japanese invasion, during which dams were bombed, causing "massive flooding in Henan" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era ) In such a context an otherwise avoidable catastrophe may happen. Then a huge typhoon closed the case ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Nina_(1975) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Nina_(1975) ) Predicting and adverting this catastrophe was possible, but given such a context nobody was able to do so. One may imagine what an active nuclear reactor would become/trigger in such a context.

evilos 3y ago
Ah, the infamous NYAS hit job. It wasn't even peer reviewed, yet it was published on behalf of a supposedly scientific community. That should tell you everything you need to know. Meanwhile, the UN Scientific Commissions and Harvard/Kyiv medical studies have found no increase in cancers due to Chernobyl. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ The Fukushima evacuation was wholly unnecessary and was only done because of the illogical fear of radiation that is spread by anti nuke orgs. That blood is on the hands of those who uphold and spread these lies.
- natmaka 3y ago
  This book is an analysis of scientific literature, and the authors pedigrees seem convincing to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment#Authors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... Most authors of negative critics are authors of reports this book criticized, and other ones are weirdos. The book's authors answered to all critics. One of the critics is Monty Charles. His own work, done for the UNSCEAR (a pro-nuke UN agency) in 2006, is heavily criticized in the book. He then criticized this book. Another critic was published by Mona Dreicer, who worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (another UN pro-nuke agency) and the book criticized her work. Another one is M. Balonov, long-time contributor of reports published by UN-agencies, and the book criticizes his work. S. Jargin, another author of a negative review, sees flaws in each and every publication criticizing a powerful industry. For example asbestos is in his opinion not a concern and its use unduly prohibited ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_mesothelioma_and_lung_cancer_a_comment https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_... ) His 'debate' with Rosamund Katz and Janette Sherman is surrealistic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278732482_Who_Is_Afraid_of_Volume_1181_of_the_New_York_Academy_of_Sciences_Under_Threat_the_Nuclear_Establishment_Plays_Dirty https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278732482_Who_Is_Af... The UN is notoriously pro-nuke, and the UNSCEAR only composed of nuclear-energy related nations (exploiting reactors, extracting uranium...). About the WHO: http://independentwho.org/ http://independentwho.org/

natmaka 3y ago

LNT: the controversy rages over... in each direction. See for example: https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/bca https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/bca

evilos 3y ago
It really doesn't. Even the BEIR radiation safety council has had to admit recently that LNT has no scientific basis. (They refuse to stop using it out of 'an overabundance of caution'). And this is the institution that basically started and promoted the LNT way of thinking. We know the basic mechanisms of cancer, DNA damage. We also know that on average each cell in the human body experiences around 10,000-50,000 single strand breaks per day due to... Cellular respiration, ie Oxygen. This fact alone kills LNT because in order to take LNT at face value you have to assume that radiation damage is cumulative and never repaired. If that were true, we'd all be dead.
- natmaka 3y ago
  Yes, the dose rate (and type of exposure, bioaccumulation of radioisotopes...) is one of (if not the) key parameter. As for its role the document I referenced seems pretty convincing to me.

goldenkey 3y ago

Many accidents have happened, most never heard of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accidents Hell, Hisashi Ouchi's death could just been handed down by a medieval like Ivan the Terrible.

evilos 3y ago
Someone burned to death atop a wind turbine. Is this a reason why wind turbines should be banned? Of course not. What matters is costs vs benefits and nuclear is just as safe if not safer than wind/solar energy per TWh.

cedws 3y ago

> Nuclear energy is so insanely safe that of the three worst accidents in its history, only one actually killed people and its on the order of hundreds of people You're leaving out the cancer and birth defects part for generations to come. Considering how few reactors there are in the world, I'd say the failure rate is unacceptably high. A single failure is enough to contaminate an area for hundreds and thousands of years.

letitbeirie 3y ago
> A single failure is enough to contaminate an area for hundreds and thousands of years. A single coal seam fire can do that too. A dam failure can even render an area uninhabitable forever. Nuclear isn't quite as green as many of its advocates claim but its environmental skeletons in the closet aren't born out of plant accidents (which are few, far between, and generally well contained in Western plant designs), they're born out of the chemical horror show that is the rest of the uranium fuel cycle.
- natmaka 3y ago
  > A single coal seam fire Nobody wants coal anymore, this is about renewables vs. nuclear. > A dam failure can even render an area uninhabitable forever Source?
evilos 3y ago
That is complete nonsense. The UN Scientific Commission, Harvard Medical School, Kyiv University found no evidence for increased cancer after Chernobyl. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ Radiation simply isn't as dangerous as everyone has been led to believe. We live in a radioactive world and the most basic aspects of our biology is designed to deal with it. Even in a hypothetical world with zero radiation, every single one of your cells on average experiences between ten thousand and fifty thousand DNA breaks a day. Because of the Oxygen our cells need to produce energy. You have to be exposed to significant amounts of radiation before you start to even approach the damage from normal wear and tear of life.