[sprafa]

Even being gung ho about the possibilities of nuclear, Fukushima and then recently watching the Chernobyl miniseries made me think twice about it and turned me against it.

The problem is not that we don’t have the technology to do it safely - we probably do. The soviets probably could have built safe reactors too. In fact after Chernobyl there was no more incidents with the RBMK design.

The problem is the companies and governments behind the building of nuclear have political and social considerations that have led to two major nuclear accidents that have led to two major exclusion zones within a generation of each other. Yes we’ve done ok so far, but it frightens me that even in a country like Japan political considerations by TEPCO led to another disaster. It’s not that we don’t have the technology - it’s that we might not have the right people to implement it the right way all the time, and that might be enough.

[Accujack]

>even in a country like Japan

So what you're saying here is that your perception of Japan is that they should be superior to e.g. Russia or other countries managing reactors for some reason?

Just pointing out that you're making decisions about whether or not a technology is safe based on your own (potentially faulty) perception of a foreign country.

You might want to check your cognitive bias here.

[sprafa]

I live in the UK, but I’m not from here. I have no idea what’s do you mean exactly by cognitive bias (and yes I know what they are). Yes I did expect a Rich first world democratic country like Japan to be probably better at managing nuclear reactors, the same way I expect to make very reliable cars, high end televisions and popular electronic gadgets. Compared to the autocratic Soviet Union, yes I did expect them to be better. They most likely were, but they were still incapable of preventing a meltdown, from what I’ve read mostly due to perception/political reasons (TEPCO didn’t want to frighten people by making massive sea walls or something of the sort).

Are you saying this is a cognitive bias? I think inferring a technologically superior country would be superior at managing technology is a reasonable conclusion. if you really think this is bias, why? Genuinely interested in your answer.

[Accujack]

Correct - the bias I was referring to was that you seem to believe that a "technologically superior" country would be better at managing nuclear reactors.

However, the truth is that technological superiority of a country has little to do with effective and safe management of reactors, which are technological but in fact decades old in design and operation.

Rather, social and societal attributes like discipline and the ability to not let political concerns affect technical safety decisions seems far more relevant. Witness the US Navy, for example - a large number of reactors used under some of the most difficult conditions possible and no accidents. Canada also has had very few.

I am not saying your assumption isn't the same one a lot of people would make, however.

[sprafa]

Sure that makes some sense. Discipline and impartiality is more important than technological supremacy, considering the tech is a actually old and impartiality and discipline actually make reactors safer