3 ms·

> Because something hasn't happened yet it can't is your claim? I could be wrong, but I think the claim is more "the fact that some people, even a large numbe

> Because something hasn't happened yet it can't is your claim? I could be wrong, but I think the claim is more "the fact that some people, even a large number of people, feel uncomfortable is not scientific evidence that something is dangerous." Or, "the ability to tell a story about some possible disaster doesn't actually make that disaster likely or possible." I went to high school in Riverside, California. UC Riverside has an incredible entomology department ( http://www.entomology.ucr.edu/ http://www.entomology.ucr.edu/ ). I'm glad that UCR is able to largely escape notice when it wants to study all kinds of invasive species, even if people who have no understanding of how the lab works can come up with nightmare scenarios involving escaped insects or lab workers infected with rare, deadly and contagious diseases. My opinion isn't based on the fact that none of those nightmare scenarios has happened yet; it's based on the fact that the people who know what they're talking about say that those scenarios are literally impossible.

x0x0 12y ago
If your claim is that a severe nuclear meltdown with widescale radiation release is literally impossible -- a claim you couldn't even get the NRC to make -- then I'm going to point to actual experience, starting with 3 mile island, fukushima, chernobyl, etc, and a series of very close near misses with widespread radiation release. So it turns out to be quite possible.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- maxlybbert 12y ago
  I think our biggest disagreement is what counts as a nightmare scenario. For instance, while 3 Mile Island did involve a radiation release, it was very small. I don't consider another 3 Mile Island to be a nightmare scenario. And I believe that we learned from 3 Mile Island, so something that bad is highly unlikely, although within the realm of possibility. Fukushima involved a major earthquake, a tsunami, a lack of power, and a plant that had reached its end of life. Even with that combination of bad luck, less radiation was released than Chernobyl. I don't worry about a similar disaster in the United States because we simply don't have many nuclear plants in areas that can actually be hit by tsunamis. Clearly we have reactors in earthquake-prone areas (and others in tornado-prone and hurricane-prone areas), but the plants were designed with those dangers in mind. While it is possible to have a similar disaster in the US, the chance of it happening is small enough that I don't lose sleep over the risk. Chernobyl is the worst nuclear power plant accident ever. Chernobyl's design was below Western standards of the time, and well below current Western standards. There is no plant in operation in the US that could have a disaster as large as Chernobyl. And there is certainly no chance of a disaster larger than Chernobyl. It is literally impossible (for a larger disaster to occur).
mcguire 12y ago
"*...those scenarios are literally impossible." Great. Thanks. If you'd said "very, very unlikely," I'd be fine, but in practice not much of anything is actually impossible. So now I have to worry about "people who know what they're talking about" throwing around unjustified assertions.
- maxlybbert 12y ago
  It's one thing when the guys running the Large Hadron Collider say that it's very very unlikely that they'll accidentally destroy the universe. (I'm OK with running the LHC). It's another when scientists say that widespread concern for nightmare scenarios is based entirely on misunderstanding and scientific illiteracy. For instance, I don't worry about nuclear power plants turning into nuclear bombs -- even in the face of terrorism -- not because it's never happened but because the plants are designed to make that scenario impossible. I don't worry about a meltdown that melts through the power plant and the Earth's crust creating a new volcano because scientists say that's not possible. Yes, there are nightmare scenarios that actually are possible. But when the two sides are "real experts who say the risk is too small to worry about" and "uncomfortable scientifically illiterate public," I put my money on the experts.

x0x0 12y ago

If your claim is that a severe nuclear meltdown with widescale radiation release is literally impossible -- a claim you couldn't even get the NRC to make -- then I'm going to point to actual experience, starting with 3 mile island, fukushima, chernobyl, etc, and a series of very close near misses with widespread radiation release. So it turns out to be quite possible.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
maxlybbert 12y ago
I think our biggest disagreement is what counts as a nightmare scenario. For instance, while 3 Mile Island did involve a radiation release, it was very small. I don't consider another 3 Mile Island to be a nightmare scenario. And I believe that we learned from 3 Mile Island, so something that bad is highly unlikely, although within the realm of possibility. Fukushima involved a major earthquake, a tsunami, a lack of power, and a plant that had reached its end of life. Even with that combination of bad luck, less radiation was released than Chernobyl. I don't worry about a similar disaster in the United States because we simply don't have many nuclear plants in areas that can actually be hit by tsunamis. Clearly we have reactors in earthquake-prone areas (and others in tornado-prone and hurricane-prone areas), but the plants were designed with those dangers in mind. While it is possible to have a similar disaster in the US, the chance of it happening is small enough that I don't lose sleep over the risk. Chernobyl is the worst nuclear power plant accident ever. Chernobyl's design was below Western standards of the time, and well below current Western standards. There is no plant in operation in the US that could have a disaster as large as Chernobyl. And there is certainly no chance of a disaster larger than Chernobyl. It is literally impossible (for a larger disaster to occur).

mcguire 12y ago

"*...those scenarios are literally impossible." Great. Thanks. If you'd said "very, very unlikely," I'd be fine, but in practice not much of anything is actually impossible. So now I have to worry about "people who know what they're talking about" throwing around unjustified assertions.

maxlybbert 12y ago
It's one thing when the guys running the Large Hadron Collider say that it's very very unlikely that they'll accidentally destroy the universe. (I'm OK with running the LHC). It's another when scientists say that widespread concern for nightmare scenarios is based entirely on misunderstanding and scientific illiteracy. For instance, I don't worry about nuclear power plants turning into nuclear bombs -- even in the face of terrorism -- not because it's never happened but because the plants are designed to make that scenario impossible. I don't worry about a meltdown that melts through the power plant and the Earth's crust creating a new volcano because scientists say that's not possible. Yes, there are nightmare scenarios that actually are possible. But when the two sides are "real experts who say the risk is too small to worry about" and "uncomfortable scientifically illiterate public," I put my money on the experts.