Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by userbinator 1436 days ago
The biggest concern is that when things go wrong with nuclear, they really go wrong.
2 comments

It “really goes wrong” only because we've set a really high bar for safety when talking about nuclear risks compared to most other carcinogenic risks: air pollution, pesticides, alcohol, tobacco, etc. If people where living in Prypiat right now, most of their cancer would come from other sources.

Because of the cultural stigma associated with radiations (which itself comes from the very real fear of a world-ending nuclear war during the early cold war) most smokers would refused to live around a nuclear accident site, even though it's quickly (after the most radioactive elements, namely iodine, has decayed away) much less dangerous than the cigarette they knowingly smoke all day.

Fun fact: did you know that in Germany alone the area of what has been destroyed by coal mining is comparable in size to the exclusion zone of Fukushima. This is when things go alright with coal: https://nitter.42l.fr/autommen/status/1538496930262704128#m

viewed from space: https://nitter.42l.fr/KetanJ0/status/1383023566766096386#m

A short immediate risk is called "danger".

A long sustained risk is called "life".

And yet we’re all still here and given the number of nuclear power plants and how long we’ve been using them compared to the tiny number of accidents it shows that it is truly the safest form of large scale power generation.