Women are more sensitive to dangers; due to the fact they become pregnant and bear children. It is wrong to give women drugs and vaccines during pregnancy, the new thing. Women are more concerned with hygiene and the nutritional status of their children. It is a positive to be hesitant until more information proves reassuring. What happens with nuclear waste?
I think there’s one legitimate argument against nuclear power, which is that a byproduct of nuclear power generation can be used for making nuclear weapons.
On every other metric it seems to be a superior form of power generation. A committed green ought to be very pro-nuclear but that is very rarely the case.
Ironically, people who are most trusting of government seem to be the most anti-nuclear and those most cynical of government seem to be the most pro-nuclear.
This has been a potent argument. However, only particular kinds of nuclear power generation assist with production of nuclear weapons. That nation states (USA etc) with nuclear weapons promote only these kinds of generation systems is telling, and avoided by partisans (both those for or against nuclear weapons) when arguing the merits of nuclear power generation.
"A study from 2013 found that knowledge of energy issues predicts greater support for nuclear power. This sounds reasonable to me. I don't know anyone who knows a lot about energy issues who is not a fan of nuclear power, and fans are overwhelmingly male, nerdy types."
I switched to supporting nuclear power generation in response to independent scientist James Lovelock's declaration about mid '00 that we needed to do so to reduce the rate of fossil fuel burning in order to slow down climate change.
Great analysis. If you read the fairly new book A Bright Future, about nuclear power, it has an new insight, that is - dangerous and scary are often conflated, but are two different things. Nukes are safe as you say, but they can be scary to some people. This is important nuance you may wish to explore further.
I bought some stock in small modular nuclear reactors, so I think nuclear is the way to go. However, I do have some concerns. The half-life of the waste is long term, I know that changes, and can reduce dramatically, also uranium waste can be reused, and can be used in medicine. But what are the chances of radioactive contamination getting into the soil, water or air. I know technology has improved and the gatekeeping is good, and the cylinders can be buried deep within the earth. I just wonder, what are the real risks? So, yep, I have some concern, a bit of worry, not full-fledged fear.
Cool. OK. Nuke waste means different things to different people. in many cases in many countries its stored in dry casks on sites, but slowly the world is building deep repositories for the most dangerous stuff (Finland, Canada now has a location chosen, etc). In some cases, it can be reprocessed.
The issue, here, is about dangerous vs scary. Nukes CAN be scary but are really not dangerous to the general public, and are much less dangerous than many mundane things in our lives that are not scary at all but CAN easily kill you.
Yeah, I think the SMR's are pretty safe, they don't take up more than a mile of land. So, I am all for it. Again, though I think we really need to make sure we can store the waste super, super safely. I often ruminate on that, could we send it into the sun? Probably too expensive and maybe would not work. Or can we reuse most of it?
There are more female medical students than male. You have bought into old stereotypes. Character matters, gender in most things not so much. There are a few areas where physical strength is the deciding factor. I also think female attention in parenting is more nuanced to issues of nutrition, hygiene and mirroring emotional states of children. However, as estrogen wanes in women, they become more ambitious in the career sector.
To be fair, there was Three Mile Island, Chernyobl, and the Fukujima incident. These were all dramatic and commanded the news cycle for an extended period. Anyone living nuclear a nuclear plant tended to imagine something similar happening to the one in their vicinity and wondering what the hell they would do if it did.
Me, I think nuclear power is essential if current climate change policies are to be met, or even partly met.
As a child in the '60s I recall a trip to Britain and feeling some sense of foreboding when it was pointed out to me that we were driving past a nuclear power station. So I think the concerns about its safety were already 'in-play' then and that the later "incidents" you mention were simply exploited for political purposes.
On that same trip, I remember the 'wonder' I felt when the distinctive steep mounds of spoil produced from 19th century coal mines in the midlands were pointed out to me.
The new smaller nuclear reactors are much safer stations. I doubt if Danish women are educated on this fact. The fear factor shows a lack of information on the subject. My one big question is, regardless of the small size of the new reactors, are there newer and safer ways to dispose of nuclear waste? I think that problem has to be dealt with before we can say SMR's are the answer.
Yes, I'm a big shill for nuclear. If Big Nuclear is reading this, please deposit coins in my crypto wallets now, thanks.
Maybe it's a branding thing. Call it "actually safe nuclear power" or "non-explody nuclear". It worked for Clean Coal. Sort of.
Might not work for people who have meltdown mutants in mind.
"Cool nuclear".
I bet women didn’t like fire at first either
Well, kids HAVE been getting burned ever since...
Women are more sensitive to dangers; due to the fact they become pregnant and bear children. It is wrong to give women drugs and vaccines during pregnancy, the new thing. Women are more concerned with hygiene and the nutritional status of their children. It is a positive to be hesitant until more information proves reassuring. What happens with nuclear waste?
I think there’s one legitimate argument against nuclear power, which is that a byproduct of nuclear power generation can be used for making nuclear weapons.
On every other metric it seems to be a superior form of power generation. A committed green ought to be very pro-nuclear but that is very rarely the case.
Ironically, people who are most trusting of government seem to be the most anti-nuclear and those most cynical of government seem to be the most pro-nuclear.
This has been a potent argument. However, only particular kinds of nuclear power generation assist with production of nuclear weapons. That nation states (USA etc) with nuclear weapons promote only these kinds of generation systems is telling, and avoided by partisans (both those for or against nuclear weapons) when arguing the merits of nuclear power generation.
"A study from 2013 found that knowledge of energy issues predicts greater support for nuclear power. This sounds reasonable to me. I don't know anyone who knows a lot about energy issues who is not a fan of nuclear power, and fans are overwhelmingly male, nerdy types."
Exactly, ignorance of science is the problem.
I switched to supporting nuclear power generation in response to independent scientist James Lovelock's declaration about mid '00 that we needed to do so to reduce the rate of fossil fuel burning in order to slow down climate change.
Great analysis. If you read the fairly new book A Bright Future, about nuclear power, it has an new insight, that is - dangerous and scary are often conflated, but are two different things. Nukes are safe as you say, but they can be scary to some people. This is important nuance you may wish to explore further.
What about nuclear waste, where does it go?
That is different question, and issue, but are you scared? What do you want to know?
I bought some stock in small modular nuclear reactors, so I think nuclear is the way to go. However, I do have some concerns. The half-life of the waste is long term, I know that changes, and can reduce dramatically, also uranium waste can be reused, and can be used in medicine. But what are the chances of radioactive contamination getting into the soil, water or air. I know technology has improved and the gatekeeping is good, and the cylinders can be buried deep within the earth. I just wonder, what are the real risks? So, yep, I have some concern, a bit of worry, not full-fledged fear.
Cool. OK. Nuke waste means different things to different people. in many cases in many countries its stored in dry casks on sites, but slowly the world is building deep repositories for the most dangerous stuff (Finland, Canada now has a location chosen, etc). In some cases, it can be reprocessed.
The issue, here, is about dangerous vs scary. Nukes CAN be scary but are really not dangerous to the general public, and are much less dangerous than many mundane things in our lives that are not scary at all but CAN easily kill you.
Yeah, I think the SMR's are pretty safe, they don't take up more than a mile of land. So, I am all for it. Again, though I think we really need to make sure we can store the waste super, super safely. I often ruminate on that, could we send it into the sun? Probably too expensive and maybe would not work. Or can we reuse most of it?
Some of it can be re-used, yes.
Women on expanding their job opportunities: YOU GO GIRL!
Women on getting jobs that actually make modern civilization possible: ICK! or THAT'S WHAT MEN ARE FOR!
There are more female medical students than male. You have bought into old stereotypes. Character matters, gender in most things not so much. There are a few areas where physical strength is the deciding factor. I also think female attention in parenting is more nuanced to issues of nutrition, hygiene and mirroring emotional states of children. However, as estrogen wanes in women, they become more ambitious in the career sector.
Back in the day (1960s?) someone must have been good at politics.
Good enough to persuade the anglophone world that nuclear power generation was dangerous, despite the evidence that accumulated about its safety.
More recently we see this applied to the Japanese, Germans and seemingly Dane's now.
To be fair, there was Three Mile Island, Chernyobl, and the Fukujima incident. These were all dramatic and commanded the news cycle for an extended period. Anyone living nuclear a nuclear plant tended to imagine something similar happening to the one in their vicinity and wondering what the hell they would do if it did.
Me, I think nuclear power is essential if current climate change policies are to be met, or even partly met.
As a child in the '60s I recall a trip to Britain and feeling some sense of foreboding when it was pointed out to me that we were driving past a nuclear power station. So I think the concerns about its safety were already 'in-play' then and that the later "incidents" you mention were simply exploited for political purposes.
On that same trip, I remember the 'wonder' I felt when the distinctive steep mounds of spoil produced from 19th century coal mines in the midlands were pointed out to me.
The new smaller nuclear reactors are much safer stations. I doubt if Danish women are educated on this fact. The fear factor shows a lack of information on the subject. My one big question is, regardless of the small size of the new reactors, are there newer and safer ways to dispose of nuclear waste? I think that problem has to be dealt with before we can say SMR's are the answer.
"Cool nuclear"
Can't we all just get along?