[tr14]

My great grand mother died from lung cancer and never smoked one cigarette in her life. She was a humble and very sober woman. (no alcohol, no tobacco or drugs, just her medication). The reason, why she died of lung cancer is, that the area, where she grow up, was near coal mine & chemistry plant. LVL 89 tho, nice age anyways. RIP Grandma. On the other hand, my neighbor from the rural area, where my mother was born & raised, lived all the way up to LVL 93. He had one shot of hard liquor every day and smoked exactly 3 cigarettes a day. His calm live and routines granted him a superior lifespan. He died from age, calmly in the bed, with relative good health for his level.

[SketchySeaBeast]

> His calm live and routines granted him a superior lifespan.

That's just conjecture on your part. Some people are lucky, others are not, it's not always due to behavior. 3 cigarettes a day is also extremely low - the average is apparently 14[1] right now.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0118-smoking-rates-...

[zadler]

It’s low but the risk of smoking one a day isn’t 1/10 of smoking 10 a day, it’s probably much higher.

https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.j5855

[mmcgaha]

When I was young, I figgured what would be the big deal smoking a few cigarettes per day. By the time I was 25 I realized that two packs per day was getting out of control.

I don't believe there is any harmful information but the whole picture is that most folks cannot smoke a few per day. Eventually cigarettes will own most smokers.

[monopoledance]

You probably have to differentiate risk. I assume for some risks associated with smoking there is a linear correlation with exposure, where it's on/off for others, or e.g. following a logarithmic function.

Nicotine, CO and radioactive toxicity have a long half-life, where primary radical damage or reactive carcinogen burden is dose dependent stochastics.

Also people forget, you are much, much more likely to die from cardio-vascular damage or COPD as a consequence of smoking, than lung cancer.

[gwbas1c]

> 3 cigarettes a day is also extremely low

The addictive nature of cigarettes makes it very hard to stick to 3 a day.

[copperx]

I remember that when I was 18 I wanted to become a smoker, but I never could because I don't do anything consistently.

[techrat]

> His calm live and routines granted him a superior lifespan.

My mean, spiteful and horrendous grandmother in law was nothing but pure bile and hatred. Every day she lived her life in perpetual outrage and never had a moment's peace.

She lived to 96.

[PedroBatista]

She probably outsourced the hate and outrage to those around her, inwards she was 100% peace.

[alejohausner]

This is known as projective identification.

[cm2012]

Yep. My wife's grandma is probably the most evil human being I've ever met in person, and she's very healthy now at 88.

[copperx]

Those two things are correlated, in fact. I can't get the citation now, but it's in the literature.

[monopoledance]

Those people may actually be able to offload stress, anxiety and worries...

I fear most evil folks sleep well at night.

[reddit_clone]

That's my theory too. Mean people cause stress to others and send them to early graves. They themselves live free of illness causing stresses.

Karma is something people invented for some temporary solace.

[xroche]

> was near coal mine

In Europe, coal typically kills more than 20,000 people _every year_: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european...

[ And yet Germany and Belgium decided to end nuclear energy because people are afraid of the "risks", but keep coal plants. ]

[CaptArmchair]

> Belgium

Belgium doesn't have coal plants.

Belgium's nuclear plants are/were scheduled to close because they've surpassed their initial lifespan. An extension was added but that has almost been surpassed as well. These are plants which have been in operation for 40-50 years.

Replacements aren't being build because they are "unsafe". They aren't being build because it's economically not viable to do so in a country like Belgium. Not at this moment in time, not in the past 20 to 30 years.

Belgium's major energy operators are also largely controlled by French energy conglomerates such as ENGIE.

[bildung]

At least for Germany this isn't true, both nuclear and coal are phased out with about the same end date.

[00jimbo]

it doesn't work quite like that, though; while nuclear is down to ~13%, a quarter of the german energy sector is still burning coal. in fact, the plan to shut down fossil fuels was hindered by (imo) the short-sighted view to curtail nuclear before it was necessary.

[bildung]

Coal is down from 45% in 2013 to 23% in 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

During the same time, nuclear is down from 17% to 13%. https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&...

Still too little too late in my opinion, but one has a hard time arguing that nuclear plays a role here at all.

[00jimbo]

the point i was making was less that this speedup of nuclear draw down was problematic so much as the whole viewpoint that ending advancement of nuclear power as a whole. germany limiting the lifespan and new construction of nuclear power dates back to the early 2000s, fukushima just reset the timelines back to the original 2022 closing dates.

[collyw]

I find it quite amusing that Germany seems to be very anti-nuclear as a culture, yet they are right next door to France which has plenty of Nuclear power plants.

[fileeditview]

And many Germans absolutely loathe the French reactors. Especially because France loved to place many of them directly at the border to Germany. There were several news pieces over the past century where the condition of some of those reactors was questioned.

[xroche]

> condition of some of those reactors was questioned

The nuclear security agency in France is one of the toughest in the world, and is independent. They notably demand "current" state-of-the art security for all nuclear plants (vs. state-of-the-art at the time of building in the US, typically)

French nuclear plants typically never killed anyone (and will never), unlike German coal plants (which are at least partially responsible for the 22,000 coal-related premature deaths every year)

Nuclear energy is a very emotionally polluted debate (no pun intended), but facts tend to shows that this is the cleanest and safest energy.

[tinus_hn]

Every country does that because there's a big circle around power plants that is in danger if something goes wrong. So as much as possible of that area preferably either be the sea or someone elses territory.

[est31]

FTR Fessenheim has been shut down in 2020. As for Cattenom, it's still operating.

[hollerith]

>both nuclear and coal are phased out with about the same end date [in Germany].

The future is uncertain, and I hope the German people don't suffer shortages of electricity as a result of these phase-outs.

[Robotbeat]

Why would you not prioritize ending coal first??

[bildung]

Because Fukushima provided a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for politicians to go against the local energy giants without them being able to gain the upper hand in the inevitable fight about the narrative in the local media. This is all power politics.

[CorrectHorseBat]

We're not keeping coal in Belgium. The last coal mine in Belgium closed in 1992, the last coal power plant closed in 2016.

[wazoox]

Yup, actually the Belgian government plans to close all nuclear plants real soon now, and replace them all with imported gas. This is beyond stupid on so many levels.

[foobarian]

Would that be Russian gas they can then use as a bargaining chip?

[wazoox]

Who knows. They plan to shut them off so quickly it may not even be possible to build the necessary gas plants (of course they promised to replace them "mostly" with solar and wind, which is a complete joke and would require at least a decade of building at full speed, not a mere couple of years).

[hkt]

Germany and Belgium have cultural hangups about nuclear that relate to the fact most Germans (and probably also Belgians) felt they'd be the first to die if there was a nuclear war. Not that this excuses them from being reasonable, of course, but it is worth keeping in mind just how occupied by the threat of nuclear annihilation many people in those countries were, and for how long.

[Robotbeat]

I’m a fan of nuclear, and I suspect you’re right. The reasons people say they oppose even existing nuclear (cost, waste, safety) don’t usually pass scrutiny. I suspect it is primarily due to their association with nuclear weapons. It instills a pretty deep fear, which I don’t entirely blame them for. ...however it has pretty terrible health, environmental, and economic consequences to prioritize nuclear phase out over fossil fuels (especially coal).

[hanniabu]

The reason I'm against nuclear power is the human greed factor. See my past comment for more details and sources:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348520

[Robotbeat]

I find none of this convincing. Industrial accidents happen with all thermal power plant types. And coal ash disposal has a worse track record than nuclear waste. (Coal ash being naturally radioactive!) And the aerosols produced from coal transport and burning are a continual problem of lung cancer.

Nuclear is remarkably well-regulated by comparison. I understand why people may want to get rid of it eventually, but compared to coal, it's sunshine and rainbows.

[da_big_ghey]

we are having way to ensure beter compliance. may be we need for to make nuclear executive responsible with jail time if requirements broken. certainly nuclear safety has more importance than sox compliance.

[valenterry]

Until the ones who gain profit from nuclear power would also pay for an insurance that covers for the worst possible accident, I think you will have a hard time to argue for nuclear energy.

[vcxy]

I grew up in WV. I have many friends from near the DuPont plant. We like to joke about how we grew up drinking dupont water...kind of morbid though since it's pretty true.

[secondcoming]

LVL?

[meepmorp]

Level. Like in a video game. Don’t you think of the lifespans of your friends in family and terms of video game levels?

[theandrewbailey]

No. Leveling up implies some sort of growth or improvement. We all know people where one year older doesn't mean they leveled up.

[lloeki]

People are still figuring the rules for the game as it came without any manual:

https://www.reddit.com/r/outside

[username90]

Level in games doesn't necessarily correlate with skill. People can build their character badly and end up with subpar skills for their level.

[dmichulke]

In a way life is about maxing skills and avoiding perma-death.

[tr14]

thanks, you feel me.

[dmichulke]

No offense intended, I just felt your motor memory wrote LVL but you meant age. I apologize.

[tr14]

None taken.

[wiz21c]

Well, I tried to ascend one or two times, but never did it :-)

[eplanit]

Me too... some mysterious synonym for "years"?

[aflag]

I think it means level. I assume the reason to say that is that having a higher level in a video game is considered good, whereas it is common for people to discriminate against people of more age.