4 ms·

> Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average, but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. No, coal has dram

by Udo 13y ago

> Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average, but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths. But, yes, nuclear disasters are potentially much worse if things go wrong. [http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-...] > Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is better: that's really only something that informed democratic deliberation can do (informed by science, economics, ethics, etc.). Again, I'm really not sure what the point is besides being contrarian ;) I'm certain that you are not telling me facts and scientific judgement don't matter? Or that popular opinion, informed by a host of factors, is somehow preferable to doing the right thing? Keep in mind I'm not even "taking sides" pro or con nuclear here, just advocating an informed discussion.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Um, Fukoshima went very, very wrong, and there were Zero deaths/sickness. That was the point of the article. And these were the worst reactors currently in service. That leaves us with safer, more productive reactors. The future holds even safer reactors. This seems like a good trajectory for everybody.
- Udo 13y ago
  My reservations about the intent and reporting of the article aside, I do agree with you that the future holds safer reactors and that's a good thing.
- peterpathname 13y ago
  I disagree with 'zero' deaths. the UNSCEAR report does not say zero deaths. it says that the increased cancer deaths due to the reactor disaster over the coming decadrs will not be statistically discernable. That's not zero deaths.
gmac 13y ago
> No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths Ooops, yes, that's what I meant to say. > I'm really not sure what the point is besides being contrarian All I'm saying is that you can't settle this question (or many others) with facts and science alone. Sure, you've got to weigh the facts, but often, including in this case, those have got to feed in to an ethical judgment which is everybody's (not just scientists') to make.
- Udo 13y ago
  I'm still unclear on what that actually means. Surely we can agree that every death or injury is one too many? So is it more ethical to run a well-designed nuclear reactor than a well-designed coal power plant? I think so, and I believe so do you. But that doesn't mean we can shrug off the inherent dangers and drawbacks. Acknowledging these issues does not make a person anti-nuclear per se. Exclaiming, as the article does, "see, not a single person got hurt, everything is just awesome!" while people in Japan are burying contaminated top-soil from school yards under their front lawn, while everyone carries a dosimeter to gauge how long they can stay outside today, and while thousands of people have lost their homes strikes me as very bad judgement - even if the health statistics have not been manipulated. By saying that facts and scientific understanding are essential to decision-making, I'm not insinuating these decisions can only be made by scientists. Instead I'm advocating a better scientific/factual understanding by and for everybody. Clearly that is not how things are working right now, but I think it's an important goal to have.

by Udo 13y ago

JoeAltmaier 13y ago

Um, Fukoshima went very, very wrong, and there were Zero deaths/sickness. That was the point of the article. And these were the worst reactors currently in service. That leaves us with safer, more productive reactors. The future holds even safer reactors. This seems like a good trajectory for everybody.

Udo 13y ago
My reservations about the intent and reporting of the article aside, I do agree with you that the future holds safer reactors and that's a good thing.
peterpathname 13y ago
I disagree with 'zero' deaths. the UNSCEAR report does not say zero deaths. it says that the increased cancer deaths due to the reactor disaster over the coming decadrs will not be statistically discernable. That's not zero deaths.

gmac 13y ago

> No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths Ooops, yes, that's what I meant to say. > I'm really not sure what the point is besides being contrarian All I'm saying is that you can't settle this question (or many others) with facts and science alone. Sure, you've got to weigh the facts, but often, including in this case, those have got to feed in to an ethical judgment which is everybody's (not just scientists') to make.

Udo 13y ago
I'm still unclear on what that actually means. Surely we can agree that every death or injury is one too many? So is it more ethical to run a well-designed nuclear reactor than a well-designed coal power plant? I think so, and I believe so do you. But that doesn't mean we can shrug off the inherent dangers and drawbacks. Acknowledging these issues does not make a person anti-nuclear per se. Exclaiming, as the article does, "see, not a single person got hurt, everything is just awesome!" while people in Japan are burying contaminated top-soil from school yards under their front lawn, while everyone carries a dosimeter to gauge how long they can stay outside today, and while thousands of people have lost their homes strikes me as very bad judgement - even if the health statistics have not been manipulated. By saying that facts and scientific understanding are essential to decision-making, I'm not insinuating these decisions can only be made by scientists. Instead I'm advocating a better scientific/factual understanding by and for everybody. Clearly that is not how things are working right now, but I think it's an important goal to have.