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

Safe Enough?

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Safe Enough?

#41

Post by XorNot »

toyg wrote: post #28
jenadine wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but you are overestimating the cost on live of an accident by many orders of magnitude. How do you get to the tens of millions of live ruinned?

Chernobyl and surrounding areas had to be fully evacuated, and it was a pretty remote site in a very sparsely populated country. That's not tens of millions but probably in the single millions. If it happened in a denser area, like France or the US East Coast, it would probably reach 10m relatively easily.

Chernobyl is also not Three Mile Island. Chernobyl is so exceptional that it shouldn't be included in these discussions at all unless you're literally planning to build an RBMK reactor with out a containment building again and graphite tipped control rods.

Re: Safe Enough?

#42

Post by XorNot »

zarzavat wrote: post #17
troupo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you want to build them ignoring safety lessons. No, I don't > The aeronautical industry is improving safety all the time, and accidents prompt new safety measures. Yes, they do. Note: we're still flying. The number of aircraft is increasing. And we don't turn aircraft into boogey men. Had aircraft been treated the way nuclear plants are treated, we'd stop building most of them in the early 80s, and the construc…

The crucial difference is that people consent to get on a plane. There are quite a few people who are afraid of flying, so afraid that they refuse to fly. That’s of course their prerogative. The problem with nuclear power stations is that when they have serious accidents they don’t just affect the people who wanted to build them, they affect everybody , including the people who didn’t want them to be built, and even…

And yet nobody consented to climate change. I certainly didn't. They also don't consent to PM2.5 from uncovered coal trains running through residential areas. Nobody consents to being downstream of a hydroelectric dam...

Re: Safe Enough?

#43

Post by wokwokwok »

kurthr wrote: post #24
wokwokwok wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is certainly bias, but there’s also a whole lot of “refuse to acknowledge reality”. Certainly, there is a cost/benefit to compare, but really, bluntly, we’re shit at cleaning up nuclear disasters. In every situation where they’ve occurred, it’s taken longer and cost more than anticipated, and the point here is that this enormously expensive disaster could have been 10x worse if not for a lucky coincidence. > Ev…

What if the Tsunami had hit Tokyo? How big would that disaster have been? Sendai is a much smaller city and it had over 100k destroyed buildings, 15k dead or missing, and well over 100k without shelter. Estimates of the damage to infrastructure is estimated in the $Trillion range (over $300B spent in direct govt rebuilding incentives). Maybe we shouldn't build large cities next to water since we're not technologicall…

Sendai was hit by a tsunami and the cost was huge, but if you visit Sendai now, it’s quite nice.

People can understand this kind of risk.

There was a disaster, it got cleaned up. Now, people live there and are happy.

The same is true of many other floods.

So… I’d say we technologically advanced enough to deal with flood waters.

Unlike, literally every nuclear disaster.

Believe what you want to believe dude. No amount of snark, prancing or shaking your fist at the sky about nuclear safety is going to convince people it’s safe.

…until we have technological solutions that more effectively deal with nuclear radiation, radioactive substances and radiation related illness.

Re: Safe Enough?

#44

Post by luesterklemme »

jenadine wrote: post #30
otherme123 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you equal-to-coal today? You need to equal wind, solar or at least gas safety. Lately I'm reading a lot about lowering nuclear safety to improve costs. Imagine cars makers asking to get rid of ABS, airbags, safety belts... to make cheaper cars. Any sane person would raise a brow when hearing that, any industry should aim to be as safe as possible, not to cut costs on safety and assume some preventable death…

> Why would you equal-to-coal today? You need to equal wind, solar or at least gas safety. Some countries are closing nuclear plants and ramping up coal. (Look at Germany)

Nice point except coal was not ramped up.

You can argue that it was not ramped down and could have been phased out more quickly but you also have to look at the political discussion at the time of deciding to put a stop on nuclear.

Re: Safe Enough?

#45

Post by FeepingCreature »

troupo wrote: post #11
otherme123 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still build nuclear reactors, they are not banned. But you want to build them ignoring safety lessons. The aeronautical industry is improving safety all the time, and accidents prompt new safety measures. They don't scoof accidents without analysis and adaptation, saying "if you want to fly you must accept that some 787-MAX are crashing down from time to time, but still safer than traveling by car, we did the…

> But you want to build them ignoring safety lessons. No, I don't > The aeronautical industry is improving safety all the time, and accidents prompt new safety measures. Yes, they do. Note: we're still flying. The number of aircraft is increasing. And we don't turn aircraft into boogey men. Had aircraft been treated the way nuclear plants are treated, we'd stop building most of them in the early 80s, and the construc…

Had nuclear plants been treated the way airplanes are treated, any fault in one plant would lead to steps to redesign all of them, present and future, to definitively avoid this fault; and frankly, the fact that this is not being done is such a massive fuckup that it's making me more anti-nuclear.

My pro-nuclear position is based on an assumption of baseline competence! This doesn't seem to actually be the case!

Re: Safe Enough?

#46

Post by taneq »

verve_rat wrote: post #37
troupo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An earthquake and tsunami in the country who coined the term is now a "Black Swan event" to make an attempt at painting the nuclear power plants failure in favorable light. How many earthquakes do you know that move an entire island by 2.4 meters? How many 14-meter tsunamis have there been? "A black swan is an unpredictable event that is beyond what is normally expected of a situation and has potentially severe con…

>How many 14-meter tsunamis have there been? Since 1900 there have been at least 12 megatsunami with a height up to 1/2 a kilometre.

Wait, what? A tsunami 500m high is not something you’d miss.

Re: Safe Enough?

#47

Post by _a_a_a_ »

roenxi wrote: post #4

> Is it right to ignore the cost of the evacuation of Tokyo, merely because an unplanned flow of water saved us? What if we assume the maximum cost of a nuclear event is not $1 trillion for the Fukushima we lived, but $10 trillion for the Fukushima we escaped This continued focus on cost rather than cost-benefit must be some sort of cognitive bias because it makes no sense. Even if there is risk of a $10 trillion dis…

Has anyone else noticed these kind of posts appear quickly for certain vested-interest areas, get voted to the top but don't have much if any backup to them?

Let's break this down.

> rather than cost-benefit must be some sort of cognitive bias because it makes no sense

Agreed

> ...once assessing the upside nuclear is still going to be a contender for the best possible form of energy.

No justification given in the form of a cost/benefit analysis (which the poster just invoked the need for), just a flat statement that it is the "best possible". Note the use of weasel word 'best'.

> having electricity justifies taking some rational risks and is working to undo the damage caused by post-Fukushima overreaction ... there was an insistence on choosing technology ideologically rather than using practical concerns

"Rational" in "rational risks", and "overreaction", also "ideologically" versus "practical concerns" More weasel words, pure emotive invocations.

I could go on, but let's finish with

> that they are cheaper but also less effective at maintaining a comfortable society

Absolutely no justification for this, and completely ignoring the fact that climate change is now kicking in badly.

How the hell did this get voted to the top, because I'm starting to have my suspicions. If it's not shilling then it certainly against HN rules "..don't post shallow dismissals ... A good critical comment teaches us something", this being precisely a shallow dismissal and nothing I can learn from except some people are wilfully blind to what they don't want to see.

Something, somewhere is blatantly going wrong with commenting.

Re: Safe Enough?

#48

Post by sillysaurusx »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #47
roenxi wrote: post #4

> Is it right to ignore the cost of the evacuation of Tokyo, merely because an unplanned flow of water saved us? What if we assume the maximum cost of a nuclear event is not $1 trillion for the Fukushima we lived, but $10 trillion for the Fukushima we escaped This continued focus on cost rather than cost-benefit must be some sort of cognitive bias because it makes no sense. Even if there is risk of a $10 trillion dis…

Has anyone else noticed these kind of posts appear quickly for certain vested-interest areas, get voted to the top but don't have much if any backup to them? Let's break this down. > rather than cost-benefit must be some sort of cognitive bias because it makes no sense Agreed > ...once assessing the upside nuclear is still going to be a contender for the best possible form of energy. No justification given in the for…

Accusations of shilling without evidence are also against HN rules. If you have a suspicion, it’s best to email HN.

Re: Safe Enough?

#49

Post by troupo »

Gwypaas wrote: post #36
troupo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An earthquake and tsunami in the country who coined the term is now a "Black Swan event" to make an attempt at painting the nuclear power plants failure in favorable light. How many earthquakes do you know that move an entire island by 2.4 meters? How many 14-meter tsunamis have there been? "A black swan is an unpredictable event that is beyond what is normally expected of a situation and has potentially severe con…

The Indian Ocean one less than ten years prior? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_a... Following that multiple studies showed that Fukushima could get hit by +15m tsunamis and suggested heightening the sea wall. Now you are trying to redefine Black Swan to fit your narrative. Take what the author said about COVID-19. > According to Taleb, as it was expected with great certainty that a global…

> Now you are trying to redefine Black Swan to fit your narrative.

Ah yes. It's my bad. "The most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan, and the fourth most powerful earthquake recorded in the world since modern seismography began in 1900" can never be classified as a Black Swan event, and I apologize for my mistake.

As for tsunami,

"The sea walls in several cities had been built to protect against tsunamis of much lower heights. Also, many people caught in the tsunami thought they were on high enough ground to be safe. According to a special committee on disaster prevention designated by the Japanese government, the tsunami protection policy had been intended to deal with only tsunamis that had been scientifically proved to occur repeatedly."

My apologies, this wasn't a Black Swan event either. Totally predictable, and not beyond what's normally expected.

> According to Taleb, as it was expected with great certainty that a global pandemic would eventually take place,

It's funny how all Nostradamuses "prove" their vague predictions only after something occurs.

What was it said about black swan events?

"The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight."

Re: Safe Enough?

#50

Post by _a_a_a_ »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #48
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anyone else noticed these kind of posts appear quickly for certain vested-interest areas, get voted to the top but don't have much if any backup to them? Let's break this down. > rather than cost-benefit must be some sort of cognitive bias because it makes no sense Agreed > ...once assessing the upside nuclear is still going to be a contender for the best possible form of energy. No justification given in the for…

Accusations of shilling without evidence are also against HN rules. If you have a suspicion, it’s best to email HN.

Seems to me it's effectively impossible to get evidence of shilling, but if this is indistinguishable from shallow dismissals – which it precisely is – this post should be dealt with in an equivalent way.

That said, the moderators are glad to delete certain kinds of posts (including some of mine, rightly or wrongly), but not this kind. And maybe they are right not to, but I'd like to know why.

Edit: I come to HN because there's a lot of good, informative posts and also descriptions of people's experience. This is really valuable stuff, but it's being drowned out by timewasting fluff and garbage to the point where I'm starting to regret coming here, and I especially regret posting something that tries to be informative when the only response I get for a few subjects (eg. drugs) appears to be co-ordinated, weaponised downvoting. Downvotes are fine, but I need to know why someone disagrees.

Post reply on HN