4 ms·

On that note, if the US had a 9/11 event every month, that would still be less dead people than we lose to suicides, which was at 1.6% the number 10 cause of a

by Udo 13y ago

On that note, if the US had a 9/11 event every month, that would still be less dead people than we lose to suicides, which was at 1.6% the number 10 cause of all deaths in 2010. Of course, every death is one too many, but imagine we put the same amount of money into mental health research and treatment that we are currently pumping into the by-definition-unwinnable "war on terror". Less people die by terror than by any remotely significant event category. I imagine the last few years will go down in the history books as a good example why the primary product of terror is fear and hysteria, and direct damage caused is purely incidental. Of course the indirect damage terrorized societies do to themselves is stupendously expansive.

mpyne 13y ago
If people honestly cared about the overall risk to them every nation would be powered by nuclear with perhaps a smattering of renewable generation in areas where it clearly made sense.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  And care more about the water crisis than energy.
- peterpathname 13y ago
  nonsense. even ignoring the undeniable nexus between weapons and civilian power programs, where I live, nuclear power would be more expensive and much slower to roll out.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Slower to roll out, yes, but the change would have happened long ago so we'd be talking about incremental upgrades anyways, not new construction everywhere. As far as cost, nuclear has the fewest deaths per unit energy generated (yes, even including renewables) and is only more expensive than fossil-fueled solutions which would be disfavored due to carbon emissions concerns. Renewable can be less expensive (which is why I mentioned it). The current nuclear cost estimates include some rather insane design margins, containments, redundant system after redundant system which could all probably be reduced a bit without appreciably affecting deaths/TW-hr, which would make it cheaper. Also, a major portion of the expense is from very restrictive contamination handling requirements to keep radiation exposure to the workers themselves at extremely low levels. These levels could probably also be increased without detectable increase in cancer rate (in fact, it may even reduce cancer incidence; see radiation hormesis). Would we really say that nuclear workers absolutely much be safer than coal plant workers, coal miners, etc.? We do now, and this also makes nuclear more expensive. Besides, if it's true that there is an undeniable nexus between all civilian nuclear power programs and nuclear weapons programs then it is probably imperative to take much stronger action against Iran than we are currently taking, since we can't trust their assurances that their program is strictly for civilian power generation. Unless of course, we're willing to allow them to further destabilize the whole Middle East region.

by Udo 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

If people honestly cared about the overall risk to them every nation would be powered by nuclear with perhaps a smattering of renewable generation in areas where it clearly made sense.

jivatmanx 13y ago
And care more about the water crisis than energy.
peterpathname 13y ago
nonsense. even ignoring the undeniable nexus between weapons and civilian power programs, where I live, nuclear power would be more expensive and much slower to roll out.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Slower to roll out, yes, but the change would have happened long ago so we'd be talking about incremental upgrades anyways, not new construction everywhere. As far as cost, nuclear has the fewest deaths per unit energy generated (yes, even including renewables) and is only more expensive than fossil-fueled solutions which would be disfavored due to carbon emissions concerns. Renewable can be less expensive (which is why I mentioned it). The current nuclear cost estimates include some rather insane design margins, containments, redundant system after redundant system which could all probably be reduced a bit without appreciably affecting deaths/TW-hr, which would make it cheaper. Also, a major portion of the expense is from very restrictive contamination handling requirements to keep radiation exposure to the workers themselves at extremely low levels. These levels could probably also be increased without detectable increase in cancer rate (in fact, it may even reduce cancer incidence; see radiation hormesis). Would we really say that nuclear workers absolutely much be safer than coal plant workers, coal miners, etc.? We do now, and this also makes nuclear more expensive. Besides, if it's true that there is an undeniable nexus between all civilian nuclear power programs and nuclear weapons programs then it is probably imperative to take much stronger action against Iran than we are currently taking, since we can't trust their assurances that their program is strictly for civilian power generation. Unless of course, we're willing to allow them to further destabilize the whole Middle East region.