FaeTaleDream t1_is7fsd6 wrote on October 13, 2022 at 9:08 PM

Reply to comment by NotACockroach in Ethics of Nuclear Energy in Times of Climate Change: Escaping the Collective Action Problem by CartesianClosedCat

No one is looking at the prospect of say that Ukrainian reactor melting down from Russia sabotage the same as oil spills.

And again it's not about numbers, you can say one disaster would double it, that's not the issue, the issue is that's it. it's done, you can't fix nuclear fallout.

Imagine if enough contamination got into the ground water around New York. What then? It's not just "oh the numbers are going to increase" no it's your done. That's it.

Planes are safer statically than cars but if you put half the worlds population on a plane and said planes almost never crash so it's fine. That's not a good bet.

NotACockroach t1_is7i2uu wrote on October 13, 2022 at 9:24 PM

I don't think your listing plausible disasters for nuclear disasters. How would a nuclear power plant contaminate the new york water supply? On the other hand I can think of a different source of energy that has contaminated the water supply in real life. Nobody is cleaning the air pollution that's responsible for so many deaths worldwide out of fossil exhausts either, and that's another worldwide disaster that's already happening and responsible for so many deaths.

It seems like a number of your "it's over, that's it" scenarios that you speculate could happen for nuclear have already happened because of fossil fuels.

Not to mention global warming, you'd need a lot of meltdowns to get anywhere near the kind of long term damage that's going to do to us.

FaeTaleDream t1_is7ir1k wrote on October 13, 2022 at 9:28 PM

The reason I said underground water is because that isn't set in stone, ironically.

Fault lines happen, drilling happens, erosion happens. And this isn't taking into account air currents if it goes that way, or if misplaced waste just sits in an area. I wonder how much was dumped in the ocean honestly.

Talking about the disaster that's already happening to justify turning the other way for the potential world ending disaster of radiation is just as bad as when they did the same for Oil, Lead, Coal etc.

NotACockroach t1_is7ljlw wrote on October 13, 2022 at 9:46 PM

Speaking of bad faith arguments, we're in a thread discussing the safety and deaths and disasters of different energy sources, and when you I do exactly that you tell me I'm justifying turning the other way from world ending disasters. I'm not here telling you that you think global warming is ok because your concerned about nuclear. It must be possible to discuss the comparative risks of energy sources without trying to twist each other's words to have a go at each other.

Unless we go without energy it has to come from somewhere. If not generating energy is not an option, then the risks and harms of the alternative energy sources is relevant to any discussion of the risks and harms of nuclear.

VitriolicViolet t1_is865l9 wrote on October 14, 2022 at 12:19 AM

>No one is looking at the prospect of say that Ukrainian reactor melting down from Russia sabotage the same as oil spills.

because they are not rational.

humans are fucking horrid at accurate risk assessment: more people fear planes then cars, more people fear terrorists then police, more people fear weed then alcohol, more people fear the China then the US.

in all 4 cases the one people fear is less deadly then the other but more psychologically impactful.

we have little to no ability to actually gauge risk, its why you look at statistics not peoples feelings.