Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Define "very bad". The total deaths attributed to Fukushima (including increased chance of cancer over the next decades) is about 100 people. Chernobyl is surrounded by essentially a thriving nature preserve.

What if the nuclear facility were surrounded by a human-forbidden nature preserve the size of the equivalently producing solar/wind farm?




I define "bad" by insurability. If the activity to be pursued has risks so high that no one will insure it. Then that's "very bad".


I believe the "total deaths" argument is dishonest. The death count is so low precisely because we know the danger exists and effect massive evacuation and decontamination programs. Such efforts are very expensive and bring a lot of suffering to those displaced, but those downsides don't register on the "total deaths" scale.


People live in Denver. If a nuclear reactor made a sea level city have the radiation of Denver we would evacuate it.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: