Hacker News Reader

> The disasters that happen when nuclear energy fails are amazingly bad though. Even discounting immediate human deaths,

Are you sure you're not discounting that figure because it's contrary to your conclusion? Very few people have ever died as the indirect long-term result (let alone by direct immediate result) of nuclear energy accidents, even according the highest estimates from histrionic ideologues like Greenpeace.

View on HN

I'm overall not anti-nuclear or anything. The lasting cultural, ecological, and economic damage from severe nuclear disasters is _pretty_ significant though and we need to do a better job ensuring they don't happen if we wanna restore peoples trust in the idea of nuclear power.

Better job? How many people have died due to nuclear energy accidents? If you consider deaths per megawatt, or most any other standard, the nuclear agencies are doing a fantastic job. How low does the risk have to be?

The relative risk of nuclear to coal is unbelievably low yet there is still this irrational ability to weigh risk/reward benefits correctly.

That's what this topic is about -- the standard for nuclear is high (as it should be), but we take the status quo of fossil fuels without a second thought, even though it's immeasurably worse in almost every way.

It's _measurably_ worse in almost every way

Reply on news.ycombinator.com