On 25 Feb 2021 17:14:02 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 25 Feb 2021 at 14:41:22 GMT, T i m wrote:

WTF has the number of people who have died in other ways got to do
with anything?

The 'issue' wasn't the number of deaths, it was the *total risk(s)* of
nuclear versus (and only generally in comparisons with) other forms of
electricity generation that I was talking about here.

Yes. But what you overlook

Here we go again with a left brainers perception of what 'I might
overlook'. Are you really so thick / left brained that you might think
I'd overlook such?

is that the total number of deaths is a good
measure of the riskiness of a technology.

Of course?

Which is why these figures are put
forward for your consideration.

But there aren't *relevant* re my point.

Just because you have facts that state that to date, there have been
no alien related deaths, doesn't go any way towards negating the fact
that their could be (well, until we can accurately rule out the
existence of any other species).

There are loads of things out in the big wide world that are *very
dangerous* and have to be handled very carefully. Only a complete
idiot would deny their mere existence *could* post a large risk to us
/ the environment, a greater risk than if they didn't exist in the
first place.

The danger comes from the poor use of whatever it is.

Yes ... with the key words there being 'the danger'. You have conceded
the existence of such and so confirmed my point. The end.

So enriched uranium and
plutonium, f'rinstance, will be dangerous if you let the wrong people play
with it. Or if you design a reactor which can be unsafe and don't train its
operators properly. If OTOH you design it to be inherently safe, which is what
happens these days, then you're much better off.

'Much better' not 'completely safe' I notice? It's not 'completely
safe' because you are unable to guarantee that (of course).

Chernobyl happend because of
a poor design AND bad luck AND poorly trained operators.

I know.

Remove any one of
these and the reactor operates safely.

'Safer'. But, so?

Of course it "could" still be a problem.

Quite.

But with a good design and properly
trained operators the risk is now very low,

'Of course', 'no question'. However, the 'point' is 'the risk' ...
compared with say 'the risk' of a windmill falling over or a solar
panel shorting out, (as far as the 'in use' risk is concerned). All of
them will cause pollution and consume materials in their construction,
nuclear probably more in it's decommissioning and loads more if stuff
goes wrong).

and I don't lose any sleep over
it.
Nor do I.

Just as we "could" be hit by another 8-mile-diameter asteroid, but I don't
lose any sleep over that, either.

Nor do I, but not the point (... as far as I know, we aren't building
/ launching asteroids).

You need to learn to assess risk.

And you need to understand how to communicate with humans (or Vegans).

Cheers, T i m