Comment by jessaustin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessaustin | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm shocked, shocked, that the pro-nuke astroturfers have expelled so much hot air on this thread obfuscating about cancer rates (they aren't dead yet, and if so you have to name them!), coal (because we all love coal!), and the Three Gorges (TIL shoving a new powerplant down the throats of an unwilling populace isn't cool when the Chinese do it), and haven't had the chance to consider the dire economic case for nukes.

As in, the fact that no nuclear power plant anywhere has been built or operated without government funding and coercion. They get us coming and going: there will be a plant here, and the deadly waste it produces will go there, the opinions of residents and electricity consumers be damned. The industry didn't have to balance its books, as long as it kept enough nuke-happy retired generals lobbying for the nuclear-death-war option. Now that that's not such a wonderful priority anymore, suddenly we're seeing all this "innovation". From the same industry that likes to put backup safety pump generators in a subbasement dug next to the Pacific Ocean. Pull the other one. Your lack of meaningful response is delicious.

"I'm shocked, shocked, that the pro-nuke astroturfers have expelled so much hot air on this thread obfuscating about cancer rates (they aren't dead yet, and if so you have to name them!),"

I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the nuclear industry.

Just because I've studied physics, know how to do arithmetic, and don't think of radiation the way a caveman might think about evil spirits doesn't make me an "astroturfer".

As for "naming them" the claim was that USS Reagan crew members had died (with the implication that the death rate was significantly higher than normal). If that's the case, you should be able to supply some names, and show that this represents a higher than normal death rate. Keep in mind that the USS Reagan has a crew of almost 6,000 people, and you're going to get a few cancers in that many people no matter what.

You made the claim. Back it up or retract it.

The fact is that not one single civilian casualty has ever resulted from the U.S. nuclear power program. Not. One. That's not the case for any other power source.

Plant workers have been killed, but at a lower rate than with coal, hydro, gas, or even wind and solar (people fall off roofs and towers with the latter two).

Edit: direct quote from the original post:

"Many people on the USS Reagan died and are dying now."

Not just a few, but "many".

Whatever, dude.

> I'm shocked, shocked, that the pro-nuke astroturfers

We all know how frustrating it is to see what one regards as obviously wrong views get advocated on Hacker News, but gratuitous accusations of astroturfing aren't allowed here. It destroys too many community health points to let it become a thing.

It isn't that astroturfing never happens, it's that the destruction of civility isn't worth the small chance that you're right. The vast majority of these cases are explicable by HN users sincerely holding opposing views.

That doesn't mean you should do nothing. If you or anyone suspect astroturfing in an HN thread, please email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look at the data. We've banned accounts for astroturfing in the past, and we'll do so again, but only when we find evidence.

I wrote about this in a couple of other recent threads:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9115965

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9122086

That's because we've noticed an uptick in people making this charge on HN, and it seems worth it to invest in some serious descriptions of what the norm is here, and why.

Sorry 'dang. I appreciate the work you do to keep HN nice. I'll try not to screw up again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com