6 ms·

And the safety systems worked so everything was (mostly) contained and no one got hurt. Like a car crash where the seat belts and airbags lead to no injuries.

And the safety systems worked so everything was (mostly) contained and no one got hurt. Like a car crash where the seat belts and airbags lead to no injuries. And then all driving was banned.

somenameforme 3y ago
The official numbers around radiation exposure from Three Mile Island claim minimal radiation exposure, yet studies have found numerous contradictory effects including 64% increased rates of cancer, > 50% increase in young infant mortality, and various other ill effects. [1] Studies have not been able to prove a causal link, but that's largely because they take, as an assumption, the correctness of the official numbers, making it essentially impossible to reject the null hypothesis or, in other words, prove a causal link. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_hea...
- defrost 3y ago
  There's a slew of studies mentioned in your link, not all aligned with some "official" policy of suppression - and they amount in total to tentative evidence of maybe something. Statistically it's inconclusive whether slight increases in some zones from a bit below average to a bit above average cancer rates is linked to TMI or to stress and|or increased screening. What is certain, beyond a doubt, is that within the last week an explosion at a nickel plant in Indonesia left at least 13 dead and 46 injured. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/24/explosion-at-a-nickel-plant-in-indonesia-dead-injured https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/24/explosion-at-a... That's an example of the generally unreported and ongoing human cost of battery technology. Note Well: I'm not pro nuclear OR anti battery - I am pragmatic about the real consequences of resource mining and extraction having been part of exploration geophysics and global resource mapping for several decades.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    Are you suggesting that a death due to an explosion at a plant owned by "PT Indonesia Tsingshan Stainless Steel" counts against batteries, because some of them use nickel, but not nuclear plants, which pretty much require nickel-containing stainless steel for its anti-corrosion properties?
    - defrost 3y ago
      No. I'm stating that to date all mining and processing of resources involves deaths, multilations, long term disease, etc. I'm asserting that to date the cumulative deaths from the nuclear power industry do not yet equal the deaths from a single Bhopal disaster (pesticide processing, half a million people exposed, many dead). I'm putting forward as a simple fact that as wind, solar, batteries, etc continue to scale up from the small sliver of total global energy they currently are to ideally matching the current percentage of coal there will need to be a substantial increase in the tonnages of nickel, copper, lithium, and more that are mined, concentrated, processed and extracted and that comes with substantial increases in the wastes associated with these industries and the known risks to human life. I would suggest that anybody making a human risk argument on any single portion of the energy industry look broadly at the risks across the board. It's perfectly fine to chest beat about safety, I'm for it. It's callously indifferent to only give a damn about a few deaths in a sector not approved while ignoring those in sectors liked.
- katbyte 3y ago
  Until we stop building and burning coal for power “radiation” is not an excuse because coal power puts off far more radiation then TMI ever did even with a partial meltdown
_ph_ 3y ago
No one banned nuclear. But of course it is the only sensible reaction to such an incident to check your designs for faults and review all reactors under construction. And then decide whether it is prudent to continue with the construction and which changes would be required.
- radicalbyte 3y ago
  Coal cause more cancer and pumps a huge amount of radioactive material into the sky but I've not seen anyone closing coal power stations to stop that. The fear of nuclear power is just one of those irrational fears..
  - cinntaile 3y ago
    The long term plan is to shut down all coal plants. In the US alone coal usage has more than halved since 2008.
  - _ph_ 3y ago
    Of course people want to close coal power stations too. One might argue about the relative timing, but the goal is to get rid of nuclear and coal. And while a safely operating nuclear plant is actually pretty low on radiation, we unfortunately had severe incidents which released a lot of radiation. Here in Bavaria, the forests are still contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster. Wild boar meat still has to be checked for radiation and a lot of it destroyed as not fit for consumption. Never mind the meat which probably gets eaten unchecked.
  - goodpoint 3y ago
    This is pure whataboutism.
    - goodpoint 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - dang 3y ago

And the safety systems worked so everything was (mostly) contained and no one got hurt. Like a car crash where the seat belts and airbags lead to no injuries. And then all driving was banned.

somenameforme 3y ago

The official numbers around radiation exposure from Three Mile Island claim minimal radiation exposure, yet studies have found numerous contradictory effects including 64% increased rates of cancer, > 50% increase in young infant mortality, and various other ill effects. [1] Studies have not been able to prove a causal link, but that's largely because they take, as an assumption, the correctness of the official numbers, making it essentially impossible to reject the null hypothesis or, in other words, prove a causal link. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_hea...

defrost 3y ago
There's a slew of studies mentioned in your link, not all aligned with some "official" policy of suppression - and they amount in total to tentative evidence of maybe something. Statistically it's inconclusive whether slight increases in some zones from a bit below average to a bit above average cancer rates is linked to TMI or to stress and|or increased screening. What is certain, beyond a doubt, is that within the last week an explosion at a nickel plant in Indonesia left at least 13 dead and 46 injured. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/24/explosion-at-a-nickel-plant-in-indonesia-dead-injured https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/24/explosion-at-a... That's an example of the generally unreported and ongoing human cost of battery technology. Note Well: I'm not pro nuclear OR anti battery - I am pragmatic about the real consequences of resource mining and extraction having been part of exploration geophysics and global resource mapping for several decades.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Are you suggesting that a death due to an explosion at a plant owned by "PT Indonesia Tsingshan Stainless Steel" counts against batteries, because some of them use nickel, but not nuclear plants, which pretty much require nickel-containing stainless steel for its anti-corrosion properties?
  - defrost 3y ago
    No. I'm stating that to date all mining and processing of resources involves deaths, multilations, long term disease, etc. I'm asserting that to date the cumulative deaths from the nuclear power industry do not yet equal the deaths from a single Bhopal disaster (pesticide processing, half a million people exposed, many dead). I'm putting forward as a simple fact that as wind, solar, batteries, etc continue to scale up from the small sliver of total global energy they currently are to ideally matching the current percentage of coal there will need to be a substantial increase in the tonnages of nickel, copper, lithium, and more that are mined, concentrated, processed and extracted and that comes with substantial increases in the wastes associated with these industries and the known risks to human life. I would suggest that anybody making a human risk argument on any single portion of the energy industry look broadly at the risks across the board. It's perfectly fine to chest beat about safety, I'm for it. It's callously indifferent to only give a damn about a few deaths in a sector not approved while ignoring those in sectors liked.
katbyte 3y ago
Until we stop building and burning coal for power “radiation” is not an excuse because coal power puts off far more radiation then TMI ever did even with a partial meltdown

_ph_ 3y ago

No one banned nuclear. But of course it is the only sensible reaction to such an incident to check your designs for faults and review all reactors under construction. And then decide whether it is prudent to continue with the construction and which changes would be required.

radicalbyte 3y ago
Coal cause more cancer and pumps a huge amount of radioactive material into the sky but I've not seen anyone closing coal power stations to stop that. The fear of nuclear power is just one of those irrational fears..
- cinntaile 3y ago
  The long term plan is to shut down all coal plants. In the US alone coal usage has more than halved since 2008.
- _ph_ 3y ago
  Of course people want to close coal power stations too. One might argue about the relative timing, but the goal is to get rid of nuclear and coal. And while a safely operating nuclear plant is actually pretty low on radiation, we unfortunately had severe incidents which released a lot of radiation. Here in Bavaria, the forests are still contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster. Wild boar meat still has to be checked for radiation and a lot of it destroyed as not fit for consumption. Never mind the meat which probably gets eaten unchecked.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  This is pure whataboutism.
  - goodpoint 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 3y ago