3 ms·

I read the number, but statistics about safety sometimes seems to me a little as magician, (not only about Nuclear) EG: Chernoby disaster, after 30 years there

by effed3 2y ago

I read the number, but statistics about safety sometimes seems to me a little as magician, (not only about Nuclear) EG: Chernoby disaster, after 30 years there is no agreements in the numbers of deaths. I remember some expert counting only the victims of the explosion/fire, the radiation effects in the long period are very difficult to account, and is quite easy to rule out big numbers, this is an extreme example, but give the idea. The same can be said about the fossil fuels problems, and every pollution problem, is so complex to determine cause-effects, and statistics is often the only tool, but is a tool so flexible, can 'demonstrate' quite everything in the wrong hands. To me nuclear is not really sustainable, not even (enough) secure, probably in the near future research can add some security, i think not quite, maybe Thorium fission and others things, but any theory (and statistics) must confront with reality, like Fukushima plant where is a reactor with a core loaded with U/Pu mix, fused, with extimation of removal in the order of 20, 30 years. Chosing to invest more big resources in this tech as a main source of energy is a big risk, imho.

keepamovin 2y ago
Fair enough, I get it's scary and has risks. It's hard to 'see' the single event in the short term as less dangerous than the everyday damage over the long term, it's normal to want to avoid that. Maybe it's not the right energy source for humans because of how we feel uncomfortable about that, even if it's the correct source rationally. Sort of like nuclear's UX is wrong, even tho functionally it's right. But cognitive biases make that hard to see. Geopolitically the best energy source is probably the one that we have and can sell to you, regardless of the long term damage. So the real risk is stupidity and greed, not technology. Humans can not be trusted! Hahaha :) It would be better to have a risk-free, universally distributed, low cost energy source, but it seems the public has none now. Civilization needs to capture more energy to make progress, but capturing that energy comes with costs, complications and risks. Probably better materials science will let us create a material that converts vibrations in a yet to be discovered by the public field energy into electrical energy.

by effed3 2y ago

keepamovin 2y ago

Fair enough, I get it's scary and has risks. It's hard to 'see' the single event in the short term as less dangerous than the everyday damage over the long term, it's normal to want to avoid that. Maybe it's not the right energy source for humans because of how we feel uncomfortable about that, even if it's the correct source rationally. Sort of like nuclear's UX is wrong, even tho functionally it's right. But cognitive biases make that hard to see. Geopolitically the best energy source is probably the one that we have and can sell to you, regardless of the long term damage. So the real risk is stupidity and greed, not technology. Humans can not be trusted! Hahaha :) It would be better to have a risk-free, universally distributed, low cost energy source, but it seems the public has none now. Civilization needs to capture more energy to make progress, but capturing that energy comes with costs, complications and risks. Probably better materials science will let us create a material that converts vibrations in a yet to be discovered by the public field energy into electrical energy.