I keep on hearing journalists refer to our 'irrational' fear of radiation and nuclear power in general. The argument goes as follows: In the past 30 years (Chernobyl included) nuclear power is directly responsible for x deaths whereas fossil fuel consumption is directly responsible for y deaths; y is much greater than x therefore we should be more scared of fossil fuels. I'm even willing to ignore the logical fallacy of this argument which completely overlooks the number of people killed/injured as a percentage of those who work in these industries (far more work in fossil fuels and therefore larger gross numbers of deaths are to be expected, all things being equal).
Thousands of people do die in coal mines every year, and the sum total of people who die in natural gas explosions in any given year exceeds the number killed at Chernobyl - a nuclear accident far worse than the current situation. Its important to keep these facts in mind, and to not forget the utter ineptitude of the BP calamity and the enormous environmental damage it caused.
But suppose I will give you ten thousand dollars if you complete one of three tasks: A, B, and C. I now tell you that you have a 1/100 chance of losing a finger at endeavor A, a 1/1000 chance of losing an arm in endeavor B(but no chance of losing a finger), and a 1/100000000 chance of being killed at endeavor C (but no chance of losing a finger or an arm). Which do you choose? Which is riskier?
Task A has the highest probability of something bad happening. But is it irrational to say that B or C has a higher risk? Though there is a lower chance of something bad happening, the cost of that event is much higher. The question was rhetorical, and the answer you should've realized is 'no' - it all depends on how we assign relative costs to loss of a finger, arm, and a life and individuals will likely assign these costs very differently.
Fossil fuels are task A: people will die to satiate our need for gas and electricity. Some of us will feel bad about it, all of us probably should, but this is the cold hard reality. Accidents will happen with relative frequency but the impact of each will likely be miniscule in terms of loss of lives.
With nuclear power, we'll rarely have a problem. However, the 'worst case scenario' for a nuclear plant is much worse than for fossil fuel plants and it's not irrational to fear nuclear based on that fact.
Radiation levels in Tokyo, a city of 13+ million residents, are apparently 20x their average level (still farrrrr below anything known to be harmful). It would take a perfect storm of events for radiation of lethal levels to ever suffocate a major city, but that perfect storm - however unlikely - is conceivable in a way that its simply not for coal/natural gas/oil.
I'm not at all against nuclear power. It won't solve our energy problems, but it's one of the least bad (and feasible) alternatives that we have at our disposal to stunt our dependence on fossil fuels, a cause that I believe in. Yet I recognize that some people could assign different values to the risks and be overwhelmed by the catastrophic possibilities that it presents and thus take a different opinion, and this is not irrational thinking.
What I'm ever-so-vaguely trying to say is that; it is futile and useless to argue for and/or against nuclear power (or any topic, for that matter) without arguing the root cause of different opinons: the values and premises which form the basis of the costs and benefits for that individual. Once you've convinced me of your premise, your conclusion will be logical. Few people understand how to construct arguments at this level and instead the airwaves are full of people ranting for or against nuclear power in completely unproductive ways. This is my annoyance of the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment