The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear

Category: Social Sciences
Author: Petr Beckmann
4.0
This Month Hacker News 1

Comments

by abtinf   2017-10-27
Dangerous compared to what? What is your standard of measure for danger? What are the alternatives to provide vital energy for human flourishing?

What was the death toll from Fukushima? Zero. Everything at Fukushima went wrong, and yet only 8 out of 2400 workers were exposed to out-of-tolerate levels of radiation. None of the plant's neighbors got sick, and no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected. Radiation is everywhere in the real world, it is a natural part of life, yet we treat it like any amount is a lethal danger, when in low doses it is not a meaningful threat.

Fukushima was a non-event, and yet it caused a movement to shut down all nuclear power. Fear of nuclear is totally irrational. The more we embrace nuclear power, the greater its benefits to human well being.

Nuclear is safer than every other form of large scale energy generation ever devised. The only concern with nuclear plants is a large release of radiation, which is unlikely due to the layers of shielding and containment. The scaremonger's goto example of chernobyl lacked such safety measures because the Soviets didn't care about human life.

Also worth reading is The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear: https://www.amazon.com/Health-Hazards-Not-Going-Nuclear/dp/0...