Hacker News Reader

Comment by rullelito | Hacker News Reader

An alternative to emotional arguments is to look at the statistics.

When you actually look at the statistics around large infrastructure projects the results are not comforting. Corners are always cut. Maintenance delayed. Just the "cost of doing business". Trust in both governments and large corporations is not exactly at an all time high. People know that companies will throw radioactive waste and scrap materials into the rivers if they can get away with it.

Conversely, the emotional argument is the only one that brings nuclear power back. You must convince people that these projects can be done safely. You must convince people that, "This time will be different."

Look at what just happened in Germany. Or don't.

Or, you can simply educate people -- this time doesn't need to be very different (though it certainly can be), because already-existing nuclear is very safe. Liability prevents companies dumping radioactive material, and radioactive material is very cheap to store! There's no benefit from dumping it. Yes, mildly irradiated water sometimes gets into rivers, and if you look at the amounts and risks it turns out to be quite reasonable relative even to solar and wind.

What happened in Germany was not rational, and it was not by any means good for the environment, or a net positive for German health and well-being.

The statistics confirm, people are greedy and while quickly cut corners when given the opportunity to enrich themselves in the short term.

That argument is not emotional, it is rational: assessment highlights risks.

The quantification of those risks is another matter.

The parallel fact, for example, that nuclear weapons require maintenance, and that maintenance requires budget, may make some shiver - not because of an "emotional" idea. It is because you look.

Update: children behave.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com