[jay_kyburz]

This is bad writing for a lot of reason.

First the author tells us that if we consider ourselves pro or anti nuclear we can't possibly have thought through the pros and cons of nuclear power. It must be because we identify ourselves as left or right. Or green or not.

Then he tells us that if we _do_ have a policy position, we are probably wrong because "its complicated". All of which I find mildly insulting.

Then he proceeds to look at nuclear "purely though the lens of climate change", which as far as I'm concerned is not useful because many of the reasons one might choose to be anti-nuclear are not climate change related.

[belltaco]

I found it good informative reading, compared to biased articles or comments that cover only one side. These articles are written for the masses, not people who have spent dozens of hours studying every nuance and came to an opinion.

If such people do comment on the article, I'd rather hope they comment on specifics rather than just say "writer is a snob, article sux".

[jay_kyburz]

My specific complaint with the article is that it's wrong and dangerous to consider nuclear through a narrow lens and therefore not a balanced and unbiased view.

[belltaco]

The title of the article is "A beginner’s guide to the debate over nuclear power and climate change", and is about the various perspectives of the DNC candidates in a specific 'Climate Change' debate.

Not sure how it's a problem that he's writing about it from a climate change perspective, and even has a disclaimer that it doesn't have all the details about the pro and anti nuclear debate.

>I’m not going to review all that history (it could fill a book); instead, I’ll approach nuclear power purely through the lens of climate change.

[jay_kyburz]

Oh sorry, I thought that was obvious. It's a problem because you might read the article and start thinking that nuclear energy could be a reasonable solution to our climate change problem, but it can never be, for reasons that the author decided are outside the scope of his article.

[rmrfrmrf]

The point of every Vox article is to justify the existence of Matthew Yglesias-style centrist neoliberal wonks. "All problems are too complicated for the average American to understand! The answer is always somewhere in the middle! Go to sleep and let the adults in the room handle this!"

[The_rationalist]

While I can't agree with all of your strawman, yes indeed many problems are too complex/needs too much knowledge for most people to understand them. Humans brains are buggy by default and without cognitive debiasing one is likely to fall in mental trap,especially if we talk about nuclear which evoke fear in most brains and emotions destroy reason.

[jay_kyburz]

It's difficult to evaluate nuclear using reason alone, because a large part of the equation is a moral issue, and we all have different morals.

Many of us believe it's immoral to leave behind nuclear waste for future generation to care for. Not only do you have to store it somewhere, you have to secure it so that it can't be misused, for thousands of years.

[The_rationalist]

Please, just quantify. we all have different morals No we do not, all non irrational humans are utilitarists, and many are without even knowing the "concept".

believe it's immoral to leave behind nuclear waste for future generation to care for. Do you understand that nuclear waste is just a kind of pollution, which should be compared with other pollutions such as C02 emissions. It is estimated that C02 kill 1000000 humans per year Nuclear wastes kill 0 human per year. It has not killed even one human in all nuclear history.

Most people who talk about nuclear waste don't know anything about nuclear wastes... And they don't realize they talk about something they don't know. With recycling technologies such as what France do since decades, nuclear wastes generate useful byproducts (MOX). France only generate a few tons of nuclear waste per year, recycle more than 90% of it. 0.1% of the wastes are "dangerous" which means don't be exposed to them more than a few days if you don't want to increase your ageing. 0.1%.... That's a few kilos per year. The rest stop being radioactive 10 years after production.

Those 0.1% are safely contained since 70s and will never be an issue. Geological containment is only a marketing for pleasing those with the irrational fear described in my last comment.

[jay_kyburz]

Yes, leaving behind any pollution is immoral. And I have some concerns about the massive growth we are going to see in batteries in the next century. People say they are easy to recycle but my understanding is that they are not currently.

I also have concerns about heavy metals, such as cadmium and mercury, but I believe we should move our society away from producing those wastes as well.

You say it will never be an issue, but it will always be some issue, even if very small, and I think its just rude to leave waste behind for future generations when we can choose alternate energy sources that don't pollute, or just go without the energy.

[rmrfrmrf]

Meanwhile, incidence rates of thyroid cancer continue to rise.

[DiogenesKynikos]

The Onion got Vox down to a T: https://youtu.be/RpkQEq75y18