[rhn_mk1]

How would you convince me to take a guaranteed small cut to my life quality compared to taking a very low chance of earlier death?

In the end, the high impact risks of nuclear are of extremely low probability, and they compound better than fossi fuels: we have 1 30km-radius exclusion zone and some smaller non-exclusion cleanup efforts for some 1PWh(? can't find the number right now) of energy total. When an event like that happens, the affected population is tiny, and they are able to move out at a moderate one-time cost.

Meanwhile, fossil fuel generation downsides are inescapeable: every plant decreases the quality of life for every person, and we cannot escape it. How many people have died early because of the unescapeable, permanent health damage for each PWh of energy produced? There's no exclusion zone at all, so there's no ability to pay a one time price and be spared the long-term effects.

Which kind of generation has "this high of a cost"? What should be the average damage to the population which we take as a baseline?

[bayesian_horse]

You're still lying about the alternatives to nuclear power. You are still underestimating the impact of a nuclear disaster. You are still underestimating the risk of a nuclear disaster. These things have always occurred more frequently than expected, and we haven't seen anyone intentionally blow up a nuclear facility yet. The possibility for someone to actually make that happen intentionally (as supposed to the also criminal but less intentional neglect in the case of Fukushima) makes the risk calculations around nuclear impossible.

[rhn_mk1]

I'm not estimating anything, I'm asking you to provide the proof of coal's superiority over nuclear. If the numbers are so clear in favor of coal's guaranteed damage against nuclear's risks, you should have no problem convincing me.

So go ahead, show us the estimates. And if you say that estimating is impossible, then why do you insist my estimate is wrong? Sorry, I'm not buying the "impossible" part. Show us the data and the reasoning.

[bayesian_horse]

My point is actually that the risk of coal is calculable and the risk of nuclear is not. And if you provide any estimate, it is most certainly wrong, because it is based on false and dangerous assumptions.

Yet you repeat the lie that coal power is the only alternative to nuclear. That convenient lie is the core assumption between most or all your arguments.

[rhn_mk1]

Estimates are by definition most certainly wrong. And despite that, you think your high estimates are better than my low estimates. By your own logic, you're wrong and lacking an argument. Claiming that coal is better than nuclear is wrong by your own logic.

And if there are wrong assumptions stopping a wrong estimate, then certainly replacing them with right assumptions will make an estimate less wrong?

Also, please show where I say that coal is the only alternative or shut up. I'm only talking about coal because it's such a weak hill you chose to die on.

[illiarian]

You are spreading FUD and fearmongering about nuclear.

We've had 60 years of nuclear and thousands of reactors. Still waiting for those terrorists I guess.

> as supposed to the also criminal but less intentional neglect in the case of Fukushima

Which is also a load of bull, mostly. I wish all criminal neglect was on the same level as Fukushima, really: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35711895

[dang]

We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines extremely badly and often. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35717990.