Comments on: Nuclear doom? http://www.celticbear.com/weblog/2008/03/27/nuclear-doom/ The daily...weekly...occasional journal by someone you don't know. Wed, 07 Jul 2010 06:54:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: CelticBear http://www.celticbear.com/weblog/2008/03/27/nuclear-doom/comment-page-1/#comment-30314 CelticBear Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:52:42 +0000 http://www.celticbear.com/weblog/2008/03/27/nuclear-doom/#comment-30314 Thanks for commenting. Note, though, that <em>I</em> didn't set up the argument, Brian at Skeptoid did. Either way, I don't agree with you that it's a straw man. Worst case scenario does NOT imply that nuclear power is "safe," but that it's SAFER than normal, ordinary, everyday operation of coal and oil drilling and refining we're doing right now! Right now, with what we have, thousands of people die a year from not only pollution, but workers drilling and digging for coal and oil and refining it. How many deaths have occurred in ANY stage 2, 3, or 3-plus nuclear reactor? Nuclear plants aren't "safe," they're safer. By many times. And a terrahist attack is going to suck, and kill many, regardless of if it's a nuclear plant or a high-rise office building. Which is the more reasonable path: 1. We continue to knowingly, assuredly, certainly, kill tens of thousands of people a year with coal and oil, or 2. Switch to a cleaner and safer energy source that MIGHT kill thousands in one remote event? And you're right, those aren't the only choices, but the alternatives are at BEST supplements. It would take a wind farm the size of Oregon to produce the power of a nuclear reactor. And that's only with consistent, optimum weather. Wind generators, earth temperature...thingies, solar panels, are all excellent ways to supplement power usage and we should be using a LOT more of them! But none of them, or even all of them put together, can power the energy needs of America like coal, oil, and nuclear energy. Of those three, I know which one I'd rather. Thanks for commenting. Note, though, that I didn’t set up the argument, Brian at Skeptoid did.
Either way, I don’t agree with you that it’s a straw man.
Worst case scenario does NOT imply that nuclear power is “safe,” but that it’s SAFER than normal, ordinary, everyday operation of coal and oil drilling and refining we’re doing right now!
Right now, with what we have, thousands of people die a year from not only pollution, but workers drilling and digging for coal and oil and refining it. How many deaths have occurred in ANY stage 2, 3, or 3-plus nuclear reactor?

Nuclear plants aren’t “safe,” they’re safer. By many times.

And a terrahist attack is going to suck, and kill many, regardless of if it’s a nuclear plant or a high-rise office building. Which is the more reasonable path:
1. We continue to knowingly, assuredly, certainly, kill tens of thousands of people a year with coal and oil, or
2. Switch to a cleaner and safer energy source that MIGHT kill thousands in one remote event?

And you’re right, those aren’t the only choices, but the alternatives are at BEST supplements. It would take a wind farm the size of Oregon to produce the power of a nuclear reactor. And that’s only with consistent, optimum weather.
Wind generators, earth temperature…thingies, solar panels, are all excellent ways to supplement power usage and we should be using a LOT more of them! But none of them, or even all of them put together, can power the energy needs of America like coal, oil, and nuclear energy.

Of those three, I know which one I’d rather.

]]> By: Robert Singleton http://www.celticbear.com/weblog/2008/03/27/nuclear-doom/comment-page-1/#comment-30308 Robert Singleton Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:28:54 +0000 http://www.celticbear.com/weblog/2008/03/27/nuclear-doom/#comment-30308 Celtic Bear: You've set up a straw man in your post. You estimate the number of Chernobyl deaths (and I think you understate them) and then argue that it is a "worst-case scenario" to argue that nuclear power is safe. I would argue that a true worst-case scenario would involve something like a terrorist attack on the spent-fuel pool at Indian Point. Millions of people in New York could be exposed to radiation. As Jackson Browne put it: "Don't think it won't happen just because it hasn't happened yet." Nobody's arguing that coal and fossil fuels aren't responsible for a lot of deaths, just that the alternatives are not limited to coal or nukes. I'd be interested in your "worst-case scenario" for a wind farm. Celtic Bear:

You’ve set up a straw man in your post. You estimate the number of Chernobyl deaths (and I think you understate them) and then argue that it is a “worst-case scenario” to argue that nuclear power is safe.

I would argue that a true worst-case scenario would involve something like a terrorist attack on the spent-fuel pool at Indian Point. Millions of people in New York could be exposed to radiation.

As Jackson Browne put it: “Don’t think it won’t happen just because it hasn’t happened yet.”

Nobody’s arguing that coal and fossil fuels aren’t responsible for a lot of deaths, just that the alternatives are not limited to coal or nukes.

I’d be interested in your “worst-case scenario” for a wind farm.

]]>