Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 619 posts

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#21

Post by tengbretson »

frabbit wrote: post #2

Radiation is good. Without it we would not have mutation and then there would be nothing for natural selection to operate on. Ergo, if you are against radiation you are against evolution. QED. Also, I have shares in companies that can build nuclear power stations in your neighborhood. Also, because I want to keep driving and heating my uninsulated suburban single-family house while I eat beef 3 times a week and I am…

In general, due to their more recent construction, suburban homes tend to be better than average at insulation when compared to other single family dwellings. That said, given the levels of snark I'm reading I would guess things like "single family dwelling", "family", or even property ownership itself would probably be pretty hot topics for you.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#22

Post by sto_hristo »

Everything around the nuclear disasters has been a human bullshit of a problem, not a technological one. Probably with the exception of Fukushima, where all the conditions were put into the extreme - killer earthquake and monster tsunami. Being anxious about it is more than justified, especially with idiotic countries in mind.

But that doesn't mean we need to abandon it. Nuclear is the future and there is no debate about it - energy density of the fuel is unmatched. It's becoming safer and safer and with the introduction of modular built reactors, the cost and time to market metrics will go down. Whether is fission or fusion - that remains to be seen...

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#23

Post by nerdponx »

sto_hristo wrote: post #22

Everything around the nuclear disasters has been a human bullshit of a problem, not a technological one. Probably with the exception of Fukushima, where all the conditions were put into the extreme - killer earthquake and monster tsunami. Being anxious about it is more than justified, especially with idiotic countries in mind. But that doesn't mean we need to abandon it. Nuclear is the future and there is no debate a…

Much of what I've read about Fukushima still implicates "human bullshit", with regard to the reactor design, underestimating the maximum tsunami size that should be accounted for, and the physical layout of the facility (particularly the location of the backup generators).

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#24

Post by matthewmacleod »

sto_hristo wrote: post #22

Everything around the nuclear disasters has been a human bullshit of a problem, not a technological one. Probably with the exception of Fukushima, where all the conditions were put into the extreme - killer earthquake and monster tsunami. Being anxious about it is more than justified, especially with idiotic countries in mind. But that doesn't mean we need to abandon it. Nuclear is the future and there is no debate a…

Problem is that you don’t get to opt out of the “human bullshit”. Nuclear power comes with a massive and unavoidable cost from these matters.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#25

Post by xigency »

sto_hristo wrote: post #22

Everything around the nuclear disasters has been a human bullshit of a problem, not a technological one. Probably with the exception of Fukushima, where all the conditions were put into the extreme - killer earthquake and monster tsunami. Being anxious about it is more than justified, especially with idiotic countries in mind. But that doesn't mean we need to abandon it. Nuclear is the future and there is no debate a…

In fact, the failures at Fukushima were definitely human caused although it was indeed an extreme natural disaster as well.

Being anxious based on the past failures is not totally justified as the environmental cost and dangers from pollution are much, much greater for existing non-renewable energy sources than nuclear even factoring in Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc. The number of fatalities and injuries from those versus their power output makes them safer than coal.

The real problem is that the public conscious is turned against nuclear because of its association with weapons and the decades that environmentalist groups have spent protesting against it, ironically.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#26

Post by redis_mlc »

coredog64 wrote: post #15
Spooky23 wrote: post #7

After you ionize the straw man to death, ask the engineers wtf are we going to do with hazardous waste byproducts for which the current plan is to let sit and rot on site at various plant sites. When you look at the inevitable destruction that will be wrought on the Columbia river ecosystem by the Hanford site, perhaps it’s worth considering what will happen in the coming years as uneconomical nuclear plants are shut…

It’s not like this hasn’t been solved in several ways: France recycles not only their own waste, but waste for other countries. Yucca Mountain was built to store what couldn’t be recycled, but certain people (cough Harry Reid cough) decided that it couldn’t be used after being specifically built for the purpose.

So ... there's still no solution in the US. Gotcha.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#27

Post by Ovah »

bad_user wrote: post #8

> " we know that things like bad diet, inactivity, obesity and alcohol can also cause cancer " No, we actually don't know that. I would say that correlation isn't causation, but for at least 3 of those factors I'm pretty sure we don't even have the correlation. This sentence here spoiled the entire article for me, as this is IMO an unacceptable mistake for a science journalist.

Correlation is indeed not causation. However all four statements hold true for correlation. And at least alcohol can cause cancer.

- Bad diet: for example red meat increases risk of colorectal cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/

- physical activity reduces the risk of many cancers. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/o...

- overweight people have a higher risk of cancer. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/o...

- alcohol increases risk of head and neck, oesophageal, liver, breast, colorectal caner and many others . https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#28

Post by hwillis »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #9

I think it's definitely true people are overly anxious about radiation, and irrationally so. For example, it's easy to find people who get anxious about xrays but not about flying even though it gives you roughly the same amount of exposure. I know I was pretty anxious when I had a chest xray as a kid. It's just the invisible nature of radiation. Coupled with the real and brutal effects of extreme doses, it just lend…

> For example, it's easy to find people who get anxious about xrays but not about flying even though it gives you roughly the same amount of exposure.

A 7 hour flight gives you 1/5th (.02 mSv- 2000x daily background exposure) as much as a chest xray and 1/350th as much as a chest CT. They're only similar if you fly relatively often, and if you get any kind of CT you need to fly a LOT to make them comparable.

Your example also under-rates the danger of xrays compared to flying under models that are suspected to be more realistic than current linear threshold. If acute doses are worse than spread out doses, the xray is even worse than the plane.

As a child, you would have gotten even less radiation from a flight. An xray exposes you to roughly the same dose, since the image is confined to a specific spot on your body. Everybody gets the dose delivered to a roughly 1'x1' area, yadda yadda. On a flight, every part of your body receives more radiation- so a 50 lb child will get 1/4th as much radiation as a 200 lb adult. If they get an xray, a smaller area needs to be exposed... but not 1/4 the size. It's actually related to the square-cube law, since the image is cross-sectional but dose delivery depends on volume.

https://www.xrayrisk.com/faq.php

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#29

Post by xigency »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #9

I think it's definitely true people are overly anxious about radiation, and irrationally so. For example, it's easy to find people who get anxious about xrays but not about flying even though it gives you roughly the same amount of exposure. I know I was pretty anxious when I had a chest xray as a kid. It's just the invisible nature of radiation. Coupled with the real and brutal effects of extreme doses, it just lend…

Compare that to the days when scientists like Marie Curie cared around vials of radioactive material, shoe stores had flouroscopes to test fit shoes, and xrays were used as an acne treatment.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#30

Post by ZeroGravitas »

LatteLazy wrote: post #12

With advances in long distance power transmission, I don't know why theyre not being build on desert coasts. Does anyone know? The Singapore-Australia line is about the se distance as a Western Sahara-UK line would be... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93ASEAN_Powe...

I would assume that transmission adds costs, and nuclear is already economically uncompetitive before you add that extra overhead.
Post reply on HN