Re:U.S. Nuclear Comeback Stalls as Two Reactors Are Abandoned
by roenxi on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @07:11PM
(#14906343)
Adding to this - there seems to be a lack of observable damage from nuclear accidents apart from self-imposed evacuations.
Literally no-one died at Fukushima. It is the only energy disaster I know of where no-one ended up dead.
This is strong circumstantial evidence that we are being too safe, because we implicitly accept a few deaths when things go wrong in, eg, coal (pollution & extraction deaths), solar ( mainly in installations not in operating), hydro (big-time risks).
Going from 1 death to 0 deaths on this scale is a huge marginal cost. It almost certainly outweights the benefits.
EDIT: We haven't had a solar disaster yet, but coal & hydro disasters happen and can be very bad indeed.
Re:U.S. Nuclear Comeback Stalls as Two Reactors Are Abandoned
by true_religion on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @12:04AM
(#14907823)
I agree. Anywhere there's a dam, people will drown in it. In fact, if it's close enough to a town and people like to drink then we'll see many more deaths in the winter since it looks like you an skate on it---but can't.
Just because radiation causes different constraints on cleanup than oil on a large ocean or arsenic in the water table or issues in a space rocket means it is morally worse? That's the part I fail to understand, so long as the engineering continues to behave ethically behind all the systems in their design and construction and retrofit.