Hacker News Reader

Comment by taylorlapeyre | Hacker News Reader

While I do agree with the premise of the article, my gut reaction is "tell that to the community living in Hunter's Point in San Francisco."

That community has suffered from being around radioactive waste from nuclear research for decades, with no real resolution. Regardless of whether that radioactive material is because of (or relevant to) nuclear energy, I have to imagine telling them "our solution to climate justice is nuclear energy" would not get very far.

View on HN

For background Hunter's Point situation had nothing to do with radioactive waste from a power plant. It had to do with careless handling of nuclear materials following experiments. The Verge had a good video on this a couple years ago, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouzU08Byrwk

Right, no doubt about that. However, the perception of nuclear energy is just as important for policy as the science of nuclear energy. Therefore, I think gut reactions are important to discuss alongside the science.

Every power generation method causes death. If you want the lowest deaths per Watt you want nuclear power. That is a morbid measurement, but they measure it.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

But this is a bit fallacious, isn't it? For any argument about a large policy change, must we block it if we can find even one person for whom there has been a vaguely related side effect? And the example you give was caused not by nuclear reactors for energy.

How many people in Africa die each day in large part because of poverty? Cheap, abundant energy would do so much to pull people out of that poverty. It could revolutionize the continent. It sure helped the west over the last 70 years.

This is essentially the "effective altruism" argument, and I don't disagree with it. I was simply explaining my gut reaction, which I think is also worth discussion alongside a conversation about the true value of nuclear energy.

People's perception of nuclear energy is just as important for policy as the science of nuclear energy.

Hunter's Point also did some goofy stuff, like paint all the piers with radioactive paint so it would glow.

Perhaps "safe and responsible nuclear energy" would be compelling to a broader crowd. I think for some it's already insinuated by the phrase, but I wager it would help remove ambiguity for others.

Probably because the physics wasn't well understood at the time. California probably isn't the best place to put a nuclear plant anyways, with all the earthquakes.

Is the damage and waste from nuclear even close to all the climate, air quality, and even radioactive damage the equivalent amount of fossil fuel energy production has done?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com