> The first thing human beings did after discovering nuclear energy was use it for mass murder
this is nothing but FUD designed to evoke a connection to death. technology isn't responsible for what its used for, and any negative past uses in no way preclude future beneficial uses.
even if you don't like nuclear you should be ashamed of saying things like this.
> I don't know how anybody can believe the resistance to nuclear is purely out of ignorance
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. It leads to repetitive, tedious, nasty discussion. We don't want that here.
Although nuclear bombs were the major threat deployed in the war, nuclear power in vessels is the major actually-used application for the technology in the military.
Nuclear power and a general surplus of energy might have prevented WWII altogether. The era of nuclear and fossil fuels has been remarkably peaceful and prosperous. It is prudent to preserve as much of that as possible.
But pretty much everything is connected to death. Computers are used for missile-targeting systems, but also for Wikipedia. I'd argue that anyone that's skeptical of computers in all their uses is missing the forest for the trees.
Does nuclear fission not produce produce incredibly toxic substances, both during mining the resources and from operating?
My computer isn't doing that at the moment, these are such bad analogies...
And I'm skeptical of gasoline-powered vehicles "in all their uses" for the same reason. It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this?
> It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you.
Kidney beans can potentially poison you. Salad can potentially poison you. Nutmeg can potentially poison you.
It's fine to be skeptical, yes. But if they have strong merits, abstaining solely based on their potential downsides is irrational.
Taking a stance of weighing the upsides and downsides and deciding that the upsides aren't worth it is fine. Saying "there are downsides" and using that as a basis for rejection is just silly, as that's true of basically everything you'll ever interact with.
The toxicity of nuclear waste does not even begin to compare with kidney beans. I'm not sure why you're making that analogy, but it's a bit absurd to me.
It's like there's a conscious tactic to compare nuclear power to things people consider harmless.
You're also lecturing me about properly weighing in on upsides and downsides, but you just compared it to salad!
> The toxicity of nuclear waste does not even begin to compare with kidney beans. I'm not sure why you're making that analogy, but it's a bit absurd to me.
Canned kidney beans (and other canned foods) are linked with botulism, which is literally one of the most toxic substances to humans. The absurdity of the argument is exactly the point, though. You aren't against canned food (despite botulism killing roughly the same number of people as nuclear accidents in the same timeframe), because it has obvious upsides. The same reasoning should be afforded to other areas too, including nuclear power.
> It's like there's a conscious tactic to compare nuclear power to things people consider harmless.
This is literally my exact tactic, yes. Not to convince you that nuclear is harmless, but to point out that the same criteria should be used. You already consider the aforementioned items harmless, despite their obvious upsides and everyday use and their potentially harmful downsides. The same line of reasoning should be used in both cases.
It's absolutely fine if you say "Kidney beans downsides don't outweigh their upsides, nuclear power's downsides do outweigh its upsides." That's applying the same reasoning to both. However, the logic of "Nuclear power is linked to death, so it is bad" is just as rational as "Canned food is linked to death, so it is bad". Which is, as you say, a bit absurd.
> You're also lecturing me about properly weighing in on upsides and downsides, but you just compared it to salad!
To be totally clear, the point of the analogy is not to convince you that nuclear waste and salad are the same. It is to convince you that the cost-benefit analysis is the same between everyday things like beans and salad, all the way to totally different areas like nuclear power or skydiving or using a computer.
e.g. for salad the risk is very low of death, and the benefits are super high. Salad gets the green light.
Internal-combustion engines allow for a great deal of commerce and personal travel, but they also cause a lot of pollution. Should we ban them, and only let people with EVs or bikes drive? (The same thought process should apply here)
Nuclear power has downsides (nuclear waste), but it also has upsides (Small-footprint, CO2-free energy). I don't care if people weigh those sides and disagree that it's a good option. I care if they look at the downsides and determine that it's bad based solely on those (just as I would in every other decision/policy-making process).
If you could cook the toxicity out of nuclear waste on stovetop, then you'd have a good argument.
Simply because botulism and nuclear accidents kill roughly the same number of people (depending on the time period chosen) does not address the issue of nuclear waste. It's a good way of distracting from it though...
I think we're going around in circles, my only objection is with the line of reasoning that a "connection to death" can be sufficient to reasonably discount something. I'll try to outline my good-faith understanding of where we disagree.
My argument: Support for a choice or policy should be made by one's evaluations of both its upsides and downsides. Something with big downsides could still be okay if its upsides are substantially bigger. It is irrational to make a choice based only on either the upsides or downsides of a choice. This approach should be applicable to all kinds of situations, from boring everyday ones to global policy ones.
My understanding of your argument: Support for a choice or policy can be rational based on only its upside or its downside, so long as its upside or downside is sufficient enough in magnitude. While comparing upsides and downsides might work in some scenarios (e.g. everyday scenarios, foods), it might not work in bigger-scale scenarios, such as the situation of what to do with highly toxic nuclear waste.
If that's where our disagreement does lie, I'm happy to chock it up to a difference in opinion. If I'm misunderstanding your position, that's definitely not my intent.
Your computer was produced using all green energy, using eco-friendly manufacturing with resources that are mined in sustainable ways? Wow, it must have cost a fortune.
This argument makes it seem like you're fine with people being poisoned as long as it's somewhere else.
> It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this?
Would you say we are poisoning ourselves by blasting carbon into the air? I would. And by that metric, it obviously makes sense to look at the alternatives, and it seems to me that nuclear is currently the least-poisonous way to power our collective needs. Solar just cannot do it. Maybe on a bright sunny day it can! But it's not always bright and sunny, sometimes it's night or it's cloudy. So you need to overproduce, and store the energy somewhere. Where is it stored? According to 90% of the solar advocates here, in batteries filled with poison, that are produced using poisonous manufacturing.
Solar and other renewables are not as "clean" as we'd like to think, and they also are just not up to the task yet. Nuclear is.
I get that you're not anti-nuclear, but maybe this is some ammo you can use when you're arguing for it.
I made sure to specify "at the moment" as I'm well aware of the consequences of mining the resources to produce both computers and nuclear energy. I was trying to avoid this exact conversation.
I'd be dead if my computer was producing anything comparable to nuclear fission at the moment.
Also, I've lived off grid on solar power for over a year, I'm well aware of what it's like.
this is nothing but FUD designed to evoke a connection to death. technology isn't responsible for what its used for, and any negative past uses in no way preclude future beneficial uses.
even if you don't like nuclear you should be ashamed of saying things like this.
> I don't know how anybody can believe the resistance to nuclear is purely out of ignorance
because antinuclear arguments look like yours.