Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The idea that nuclear waste needs to be isolated for (pick your arbitrarily large number) of years is a misconception based on the assumption that everything else remains static.

It won't. In particular, we are in the middle (actually, maybe still near the beginning) of a biotechnology revolution every bit as profound as the electronic one that started with the transistor.

What we fear most from radiation is cancer. If it weren't for cancer, nuclear power would be a no-brainer. Its environmental impact is negligible compared to fossil fuels because the volume of fuel mined and transported is so much less. This was shown in a book titled "The Health Risks of Not Going Nuclear", now sadly out of print.

And in fact, radiation is a very weak carcinogen. Frank Von Hippel, a Princeton professor who is no friend of nuclear power, has estimated the total cancer deaths resulting from Fukushima at somewhere near a thousand -- pretty bad for an industrial accident, but hardly the Black Death all over again.

Consider cancer treatment today compared to, say, Ben Franklin's time. Now imagine how much more detailed our understanding of cancer treatment, possibly even prevention, will become in another century or two.

If cancer becomes the kind of non-issue that smallpox is today, a disease which used to kill one child in three before the age of 5 in many parts of the world, our descendants will regard us with the same pitying disbelief that we apply to the self-flagellators of 1348 trying to propitiate an angry G*d.

Consider this slideshow:

   http://www.scribd.com/doc/54904454
entitled "A Rational Environmentalist's Guide to Nuclear Power".



Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: