4 ms·

Or maybe better communication? Nuclear is, depending on what stats you use, either among the safest or actually the safest energy source. https://ourworldinda

Or maybe better communication? Nuclear is, depending on what stats you use, either among the safest or actually the safest energy source. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (And the top 3 are so close that differences are essentially noise)

rightbyte 3y ago
In the same way the Concordes were the safest passenger jets, until they suddenly weren't.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  Nope, this is including two accidents. And Concorde was retired because they could no longer operate it, for example no spare parts.
  - laszlojamf 3y ago
    And also didn't it just turn out that people weren't really interested in spending a lot more money to get to where they were going a little bit faster?
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      One might think so, but no, that wasn't the case. Concorde was operating profitably with reasonable load factors. And of course you now have aviation startups trying to tap the same market.
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    > Nope, this is including two accidents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Accidents_and_inciden... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#Conclusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#Conclus... And it was caused by a DC-10! They should probably have added the Kevlar lining on the fuel tanks a bit earlier, though.
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      Apologies, the "two accidents" I referred to were the nuclear accidents. Which are obviously in the nuclear safety stats. And yes, caused by debris falling of a DC-10.
tedivm 3y ago
Just looking at deaths doesn't really tell the whole story. There aren't a lot of towns that have had to be evacuated and abandoned due to solar industry accidents.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure 1975 Chinese Dam fails 150K deaths 4.6 million homes destroyed 11 million people displaced Number of countries getting out of hydro: 0 ( in words: zero ) Japan and Ukraine are both among the countries that signed the “tripling nuclear by 2050” pledge. My guess would be that they have the best information on the risks of nuclear.
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    You can still build new homes on that land once it's dry. It's not contaminated with radioactivity. Imagine one of the old French reactors "going nuclear" right in the middle of dense populated Europe. It looks like a derailment and OPs argument still stands, imho. The only thing is that you can add results of radiation throughout generations, where people develop mutations and/or die early. None of those cases are in the handy graphic from above, which only counts immediate deaths.
    - peterfirefly 3y ago
      Chernobyl was a very special case. The reactor had no containment vessel -- we don't build that kind of reactors anymore (and the "old French reactors" do have containment vessels). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building Your "results of radiation throughout generations" line doesn't really make sense. Don't go into the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. That's it. You don't get much radiation from other nuclear power plants and certainly not "throughout generations". You do from radon gas in the basement in some parts of the world, you do from coal smoke (a tiny bit), and you do if you live in an area with a high background radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran#Radioactivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran#Radioactivity And what else? Yes, the evacuation around Fukushima. They panicked and evacuated far too many :(
osigurdson 3y ago
I think meta analysis aren't very compelling to a lot of people. Few death certificates read "killed by coal" for example. If true, I think communicating that modern reactors (for example) no longer produce weapons grade materials this could be helpful.

rightbyte 3y ago

In the same way the Concordes were the safest passenger jets, until they suddenly weren't.

mpweiher 3y ago
Nope, this is including two accidents. And Concorde was retired because they could no longer operate it, for example no spare parts.
- laszlojamf 3y ago
  And also didn't it just turn out that people weren't really interested in spending a lot more money to get to where they were going a little bit faster?
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    One might think so, but no, that wasn't the case. Concorde was operating profitably with reasonable load factors. And of course you now have aviation startups trying to tap the same market.
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  > Nope, this is including two accidents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Accidents_and_inciden... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#Conclusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#Conclus... And it was caused by a DC-10! They should probably have added the Kevlar lining on the fuel tanks a bit earlier, though.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    Apologies, the "two accidents" I referred to were the nuclear accidents. Which are obviously in the nuclear safety stats. And yes, caused by debris falling of a DC-10.

tedivm 3y ago

Just looking at deaths doesn't really tell the whole story. There aren't a lot of towns that have had to be evacuated and abandoned due to solar industry accidents.

mpweiher 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure 1975 Chinese Dam fails 150K deaths 4.6 million homes destroyed 11 million people displaced Number of countries getting out of hydro: 0 ( in words: zero ) Japan and Ukraine are both among the countries that signed the “tripling nuclear by 2050” pledge. My guess would be that they have the best information on the risks of nuclear.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  You can still build new homes on that land once it's dry. It's not contaminated with radioactivity. Imagine one of the old French reactors "going nuclear" right in the middle of dense populated Europe. It looks like a derailment and OPs argument still stands, imho. The only thing is that you can add results of radiation throughout generations, where people develop mutations and/or die early. None of those cases are in the handy graphic from above, which only counts immediate deaths.
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    Chernobyl was a very special case. The reactor had no containment vessel -- we don't build that kind of reactors anymore (and the "old French reactors" do have containment vessels). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building Your "results of radiation throughout generations" line doesn't really make sense. Don't go into the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. That's it. You don't get much radiation from other nuclear power plants and certainly not "throughout generations". You do from radon gas in the basement in some parts of the world, you do from coal smoke (a tiny bit), and you do if you live in an area with a high background radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran#Radioactivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran#Radioactivity And what else? Yes, the evacuation around Fukushima. They panicked and evacuated far too many :(

osigurdson 3y ago

I think meta analysis aren't very compelling to a lot of people. Few death certificates read "killed by coal" for example. If true, I think communicating that modern reactors (for example) no longer produce weapons grade materials this could be helpful.