6 ms·

Your point is that there is a long tail risk which exists which might not show up in the historical data. I think this is wrong because Chernobyl is that tail r

Your point is that there is a long tail risk which exists which might not show up in the historical data. I think this is wrong because Chernobyl is that tail risk and it is already inside the data, and moreover the odds of that tail risk happening again have declined and so it's exaggerated. A better analogy is the stock market, where the GFC and the great depression are tail risks that are already inside the data. Or data on pedestrian fatalities across an entire country, where tail risks are represented due to law of large numbers across many people. If you think building modern reactor designs away from cities presents a bigger tail risk than Chernobyl, you're going to have to outline how that is a plausible situation rather than going for analogies.

Kon5ole 5y ago
I understand your argument but disagree about Chernobyl being the tall risk. This is basically the the same logical errer again, Chernobyl is only the worst incident that has happened /so far/. It is well documented that Chernobyl itself could easily have been much worse, and the real tall risk is something like a ”dirty” bomb made possible by negligent handling of radioactive materials. There are several known incidents where discarded radioactive materials have killed people and contaminated buildings, this happens regularly even without malicious intent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  > This is basically the the same logical errer again It's not necessarily a logical error. Extreme value theory should be the default tool for understanding tail risks (e.g. earthquake magnitude), unless we have good theoretical/logical reasons to depart from an understanding that's mostly informed by historical data. Nuclear weapons are where I agree with your perspective. The tail risk is significantly larger than what is present in historical data, and attempts to understand this risk by looking at historical data are flawed. Nuclear energy, like earthquake magnitude, is where I disagree with your perspective, unless you can present a coherent rationale about why nuclear power tail risk is drastically underestimated by the historical data, especially after taking into consideration modern plant designs which are safer than Chernobyl + the possibility of building them in the desert with nobody nearby.
  - Kon5ole 5y ago
    Hey first of all thanks for the constructive replies, much appreciated! "Attempts to understand this risk by looking at historical data are flawed" is a good summary of my main point, you got it. Basically I think we can't ignore the possibility of large incidents just because they haven't happened yet. We can extrapolate from known small incidents, some of which are listed on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_acc... Some standouts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_San_Juan_de_Dios_radiotherapy_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_San_Juan_de_Dios_radiothe... Other incidents mentioned without separate stories include radioactive waste finding its way into road pavement, apartment building materials (hundreds of contaminated flats, nobody found out for years). Incidents such as these have killed many people over several decades in many countries, and that's just through sheer negligence. What if someone adds malice to the mix? That's actually my main concern about nuclear power, not the safety of the reactors. But since you mentioned building them in a desert in order to be safe I feel the need to mention my perspective there too. First of all, Chernobyl had 4 reactors and only one exploded, thanks to heroic effort. (Meaning it could at the very least have been 4x worse than it was). The event was actually discovered in the west by sensors in Sweden, which is very far away. Fallout from Chernobyl made certain grazing animals surpass legal radiation levels for over 30 years (and counting) in areas as remote as Lapland and Bavaria. To put the distances in perspective if you are American, it means that a similar event as Chernobyl taking place in Florida would make pigs from Texas and Caribou from Ontario be unsuitable for human consumption, for many decades. So distance does not really help. In order to be safe by putting power plants in a desert, the USA would basically need to put it's reactors in the Sahara. The safest place for a reactor would be inside a very stable and peaceful country with a very high level of mental health in the entire population. Maybe Switzerland? I'm not saying we shouldn't even consider it under any circumstance, but if there's any other option (which I believe) then that option is probably preferable.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      Let's take a step back. What about molten salt reactors? I feel like it is a mistake to think future nuclear reactors have the same safety profile as old ones when thinking about tail risks.

Kon5ole 5y ago

I understand your argument but disagree about Chernobyl being the tall risk. This is basically the the same logical errer again, Chernobyl is only the worst incident that has happened /so far/. It is well documented that Chernobyl itself could easily have been much worse, and the real tall risk is something like a ”dirty” bomb made possible by negligent handling of radioactive materials. There are several known incidents where discarded radioactive materials have killed people and contaminated buildings, this happens regularly even without malicious intent.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fighterpilot 5y ago
> This is basically the the same logical errer again It's not necessarily a logical error. Extreme value theory should be the default tool for understanding tail risks (e.g. earthquake magnitude), unless we have good theoretical/logical reasons to depart from an understanding that's mostly informed by historical data. Nuclear weapons are where I agree with your perspective. The tail risk is significantly larger than what is present in historical data, and attempts to understand this risk by looking at historical data are flawed. Nuclear energy, like earthquake magnitude, is where I disagree with your perspective, unless you can present a coherent rationale about why nuclear power tail risk is drastically underestimated by the historical data, especially after taking into consideration modern plant designs which are safer than Chernobyl + the possibility of building them in the desert with nobody nearby.
- Kon5ole 5y ago
  Hey first of all thanks for the constructive replies, much appreciated! "Attempts to understand this risk by looking at historical data are flawed" is a good summary of my main point, you got it. Basically I think we can't ignore the possibility of large incidents just because they haven't happened yet. We can extrapolate from known small incidents, some of which are listed on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_acc... Some standouts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_San_Juan_de_Dios_radiotherapy_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_San_Juan_de_Dios_radiothe... Other incidents mentioned without separate stories include radioactive waste finding its way into road pavement, apartment building materials (hundreds of contaminated flats, nobody found out for years). Incidents such as these have killed many people over several decades in many countries, and that's just through sheer negligence. What if someone adds malice to the mix? That's actually my main concern about nuclear power, not the safety of the reactors. But since you mentioned building them in a desert in order to be safe I feel the need to mention my perspective there too. First of all, Chernobyl had 4 reactors and only one exploded, thanks to heroic effort. (Meaning it could at the very least have been 4x worse than it was). The event was actually discovered in the west by sensors in Sweden, which is very far away. Fallout from Chernobyl made certain grazing animals surpass legal radiation levels for over 30 years (and counting) in areas as remote as Lapland and Bavaria. To put the distances in perspective if you are American, it means that a similar event as Chernobyl taking place in Florida would make pigs from Texas and Caribou from Ontario be unsuitable for human consumption, for many decades. So distance does not really help. In order to be safe by putting power plants in a desert, the USA would basically need to put it's reactors in the Sahara. The safest place for a reactor would be inside a very stable and peaceful country with a very high level of mental health in the entire population. Maybe Switzerland? I'm not saying we shouldn't even consider it under any circumstance, but if there's any other option (which I believe) then that option is probably preferable.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    Let's take a step back. What about molten salt reactors? I feel like it is a mistake to think future nuclear reactors have the same safety profile as old ones when thinking about tail risks.