4 ms·

Why? Could you source your statement? Not that I'm doubting you, but I would like to learn more. :)

imagine99 5y ago
1986: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Nuclear_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Nuclear_deb... 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... and in the aftermath for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#German...
- andredz 5y ago
  One would hope that after such a disaster, and given the pros of the underlying technology, more funding and research would be focused on safety, rather than abandoning it. I wonder to which degree has nuclear power's association with nuclear weapons affected its public perception.
saganus 5y ago
It's a reference to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011
- andredz 5y ago
  Thanks. (Is a simple thanks a valid HN comment?)
grayfaced 5y ago
1986 is chernobyl, 2011 is fukushima. His comment isn't on safety, but perception of safety.
- andredz 5y ago
  You are right, perception… Knowing that those years referred to those disasters, it feels a tad ridiculous to have asked for sources, but thanks :-)
gnulinux 5y ago
Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 was among the worst nuclear disasters in history; not only because its human toll was so high, but also because it was the "final straw" -- so to say -- in public opinion in Western countries that made people scared of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy remains the safest, cleanest way to produce energy but Chernobyl and Fukushima significantly reduced the funding going into this kind of research, because public opinion was very much against nuclear power. It is getting better recently, but if history shows anything in the next 20 to 30 years we will have another disaster that will change public opinion again.
- beerandt 5y ago
  >not only because its human toll was so high 1 radiation death and 18 injuries? (Only 2 of which involved possible radiation exposure.) The "overly-conservative" decision to evacuate such a large area killed more people than if they hadn't evacuated at all. Even Chernobyl only killed ~30 people, with maybe another 30 cases of cancer that workers had since then.
  - gnulinux 5y ago
    Sorry I phrased it wrong. I meant to say "not because". That "only" is extraneous.
- andredz 5y ago
  I see. Thanks for the explanation. I had been thinking in terms of the technology rather than in its public perception (although sure… that perception influences funding for the technology). Now I see that I would have been well served by looking up 'nuclear 2011' and 'nuclear 1986' since those disasters are very famous. But thanks to all for telling me. :)

1986: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Nuclear_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Nuclear_deb... 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... and in the aftermath for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#German...

andredz 5y ago
One would hope that after such a disaster, and given the pros of the underlying technology, more funding and research would be focused on safety, rather than abandoning it. I wonder to which degree has nuclear power's association with nuclear weapons affected its public perception.

saganus 5y ago

It's a reference to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011

andredz 5y ago
Thanks. (Is a simple thanks a valid HN comment?)

grayfaced 5y ago

1986 is chernobyl, 2011 is fukushima. His comment isn't on safety, but perception of safety.

andredz 5y ago
You are right, perception… Knowing that those years referred to those disasters, it feels a tad ridiculous to have asked for sources, but thanks :-)

gnulinux 5y ago

Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 was among the worst nuclear disasters in history; not only because its human toll was so high, but also because it was the "final straw" -- so to say -- in public opinion in Western countries that made people scared of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy remains the safest, cleanest way to produce energy but Chernobyl and Fukushima significantly reduced the funding going into this kind of research, because public opinion was very much against nuclear power. It is getting better recently, but if history shows anything in the next 20 to 30 years we will have another disaster that will change public opinion again.

beerandt 5y ago
>not only because its human toll was so high 1 radiation death and 18 injuries? (Only 2 of which involved possible radiation exposure.) The "overly-conservative" decision to evacuate such a large area killed more people than if they hadn't evacuated at all. Even Chernobyl only killed ~30 people, with maybe another 30 cases of cancer that workers had since then.
- gnulinux 5y ago
  Sorry I phrased it wrong. I meant to say "not because". That "only" is extraneous.
andredz 5y ago
I see. Thanks for the explanation. I had been thinking in terms of the technology rather than in its public perception (although sure… that perception influences funding for the technology). Now I see that I would have been well served by looking up 'nuclear 2011' and 'nuclear 1986' since those disasters are very famous. But thanks to all for telling me. :)