7 ms·

Technical wonder aside, the argument for using nuclear power over fossil fuels really hits a faultline in situations like this. I wonder how the majority of fol

Technical wonder aside, the argument for using nuclear power over fossil fuels really hits a faultline in situations like this. I wonder how the majority of folk rationalise their viewpoint surrounding this situation without being seen as massively hypocritical?

wiz21c 3y ago
A nuclear plant is just as weaponizable as any large dam...
- moontear 3y ago
  Is it? The nuclear fallout of a plant may linger for longer than any destruction done by the water of a large dam I would say or do you mean something else?
  - sofixa 3y ago
    A modern nuclear powerplant is incapable of exploding, at worst it can meltdown and leak radiation in the vicinity. This can of course have very bad results, but check Fukushima - more people died from the evacuation, and from a fire caused by a fuel tank in another city due to the natural disasters that caused the meltdown, than did from radiation. A radiation leak is easy to detect (and all areas near nuclear power plants in semi-developed countries have automated collection of radiation), and isn't an immediate death sentence. Meanwhile when a dam breaks, immediately everyone and everything in its path will be obliterated. Vastly more people have died from dam failures than even the worst of the worst of nuclear power plant incidents, Chernobyl, where staggering incompetence met horrific design flaws and bugs. Something like that is impossible to happen today.
  - le-mark 3y ago
    Certain types of nuclear reactors can be used to create fissile material; kind of super weaponisable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
  - namaria 3y ago
    A dam failure was caused by the nationalistic Chinese government fighting against Japanese forces in the 30s. It killed hundreds of thousands of people. Do you have an example of nuclear energy plant being weaponized to the tune of hundreds of thousands of deaths?
zmgsabst 3y ago
How, specifically? What makes this worse than Colonial shutting down from a cyber attack?
jmcgough 3y ago
Nuclear power is vastly better in terms of emissions, so I'd argue that blowing up a plant or two is worth stopping global warming. But why target plants when a dirty bomb attack would be way easier and more effective? Additionally, most countries don't have the resources to pull off something like Stuxnet, and the ones that do have much more to gain through corporate and government espionage.
- H8crilA 3y ago
  There is some problem there though - peacefully using nuclear power creates plutonium, which could be later extracted.
  - hoseja 3y ago
    Not if you use other processes. But those don't produce plutonium so they haven't been invested in enough.
tetrisgm 3y ago
This is fearmongering disguised as "just asking questions" and critical thinking. If your concerns were genuine, the answers about the effectiveness of nuclear would be easy to find.
meeuwer 3y ago
The exploited software is conveniently developed and controlled by Iran’s adversaries. In another episode of the geopolitical sabotage show, “In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline, according to a memoir by a Reagan White House official.” True or not, the risk of software Trojan horses in the big energy game was recognized pretty early. The lesson here is, potentially dangerous technology ought to be matched by a comprehensive security protocol.
- rereasonable 3y ago
  Yep, don't run your centrifuges on windows 98 is probably sound advice. >In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions.. Ooh now you've got me thinking about Chernobyl...
krisoft 3y ago
Nuclear energy generation and nuclear weapons have very little to do with each other. You can do one, without doing the other. > I wonder how the majority of folk rationalise their viewpoint surrounding this situation without being seen as massively hypocritical? It would be useful if you could point out what exactly are you feeling is hypocritical?

wiz21c 3y ago

A nuclear plant is just as weaponizable as any large dam...

moontear 3y ago
Is it? The nuclear fallout of a plant may linger for longer than any destruction done by the water of a large dam I would say or do you mean something else?
- sofixa 3y ago
  A modern nuclear powerplant is incapable of exploding, at worst it can meltdown and leak radiation in the vicinity. This can of course have very bad results, but check Fukushima - more people died from the evacuation, and from a fire caused by a fuel tank in another city due to the natural disasters that caused the meltdown, than did from radiation. A radiation leak is easy to detect (and all areas near nuclear power plants in semi-developed countries have automated collection of radiation), and isn't an immediate death sentence. Meanwhile when a dam breaks, immediately everyone and everything in its path will be obliterated. Vastly more people have died from dam failures than even the worst of the worst of nuclear power plant incidents, Chernobyl, where staggering incompetence met horrific design flaws and bugs. Something like that is impossible to happen today.
- le-mark 3y ago
  Certain types of nuclear reactors can be used to create fissile material; kind of super weaponisable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
- namaria 3y ago
  A dam failure was caused by the nationalistic Chinese government fighting against Japanese forces in the 30s. It killed hundreds of thousands of people. Do you have an example of nuclear energy plant being weaponized to the tune of hundreds of thousands of deaths?

zmgsabst 3y ago

How, specifically? What makes this worse than Colonial shutting down from a cyber attack?

jmcgough 3y ago

Nuclear power is vastly better in terms of emissions, so I'd argue that blowing up a plant or two is worth stopping global warming. But why target plants when a dirty bomb attack would be way easier and more effective? Additionally, most countries don't have the resources to pull off something like Stuxnet, and the ones that do have much more to gain through corporate and government espionage.

H8crilA 3y ago
There is some problem there though - peacefully using nuclear power creates plutonium, which could be later extracted.
- hoseja 3y ago
  Not if you use other processes. But those don't produce plutonium so they haven't been invested in enough.

tetrisgm 3y ago

This is fearmongering disguised as "just asking questions" and critical thinking. If your concerns were genuine, the answers about the effectiveness of nuclear would be easy to find.

meeuwer 3y ago

The exploited software is conveniently developed and controlled by Iran’s adversaries. In another episode of the geopolitical sabotage show, “In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline, according to a memoir by a Reagan White House official.” True or not, the risk of software Trojan horses in the big energy game was recognized pretty early. The lesson here is, potentially dangerous technology ought to be matched by a comprehensive security protocol.

rereasonable 3y ago
Yep, don't run your centrifuges on windows 98 is probably sound advice. >In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions.. Ooh now you've got me thinking about Chernobyl...

krisoft 3y ago

Nuclear energy generation and nuclear weapons have very little to do with each other. You can do one, without doing the other. > I wonder how the majority of folk rationalise their viewpoint surrounding this situation without being seen as massively hypocritical? It would be useful if you could point out what exactly are you feeling is hypocritical?