[wishawa]

> federal regulators consistently assured Americans that the risks of a massive accident were “vanishingly small”—even when they knew they had insufficient evidence to prove it

Why is the burden of proof on them? Nuclear should be innocent until proven guilty just like any other technology. Once the principle design has been shown to be sound, it should be the job of those opposing it to prove claims of unsafeness.

[switchbak]

Absolutely not. We know what happens in the worst case, so in this regard an abundance of precaution is most certainly appropriate.

As to how far you go to ensure safe designs, that's a question, but I don't think it's appropriate to 'assume the best' in this case, given the huge potential downsides. And I'm someone who's pretty supportive of modern and safe nuclear!

[sillystuff]

Disagree with this part:

"Nuclear should be innocent until proven guilty..."

Fully agree with this part:

"...just like any other technology"

The assumption of safe until proven dangerous should be flipped wherever it currently prevails. If X wants to add some novel thing into our environment / food supply, the burden should be on X to prove safety, first.

[AstralStorm]

We have sufficient evidence from France and Germany that safe reactor designs are safe.

[Baloo]

Aren't France shutting down a large number of plants due to safety issues?

[BurningFrog]

Looked this up, and France is having several nuclear problems at once, including that rivers used for cooling is getting too warm in the summer.

Some of it is indeed security concerns in aging reactors.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/business/france-nuclear-p...

[Georgelemental]

Yes, France is shutting down perfectly functional reactors like Fessenheim that could continue working for decades with minimal maitenance. And now electricity prices are projected to dectuple

[synotna2]

If only coal and gas were held to the same standard