site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30730 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Looking at Reddit comments might not necessarily be instructive of the general reaction but it's been nothing but relief so far.

one thing that I've always found interesting is that the thing that tends to unite the internet is a very pro-nuclear power stance. reddit, twitter, themotte, hell even rdrama, are from what i can tell, decidedly pro-nuclear power. it's an interesting trend that i've seen that has had quite large staying power. it's hard to argue that reddit for example has the same general politics as it does 10 years ago, but even then the issue of nuclear power seems to be constant.

i'm sure there are some small groups that are anti-nuclear on the internet, but i think you'd be more hard pressed to find anti-nuclear communities online than to find a lot of different things. i find that observation to be pretty interesting.

i'd argue this is for good reason: nuclear power seems to be an amazing way to generate base load, tends to emit less radiation than coal powered plants1, and is dozens or hundreds of times cleaner than other energy sources.

1: the study i linked found that for the energy generated, more radiation is given out by fly ash, which contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium. while the amount of radiation that makes it into people from both of these sources isn't dangerous, it's worth pointing out when given the concerns of "gonna be irradiated."

Scientific American: Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

the study i linked found that for the energy generated, more radiation is given out by fly ash, which contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium. while the amount of radiation that makes it into people from both of these sources isn't dangerous, it's worth pointing out when given the concerns of "gonna be irradiated."

The title of that article is laughably false. The underlying point it is based on, that under normal operation a nuclear plant releases less radioactive material into the environment than a coal plant, is technically true but grossly misleading. Under normal operation nuclear plants release essentially no radioactive material, the radioactivity concern is concentrated purely into the possibility of something going wrong. Sanity-check I did after encountering this argument a decade ago:

The EPA gives the radioactivity of average fly ash as 5.8 picocuries per gram, and the U.S. produces around 125 million tons of coal-combustion byproducts per year as of 2006. If we overestimate and assume all coal-combustion byproducts are the more-radioactive fly ash, that comes to around 658 curies worth of material per year. By comparison, a year after the Fukushima disaster TEPCO estimated total radiation releases as 538,100 terabecquerels - equivalent to 14,543,243 curies. Note that this assumes all fly ash is being released into the environment when modern first-world plants safely capture most of it. So one year after the Fukushima disaster it had already released more radiation than 22,000 years of 2006-era U.S. coal radiation emissions, under very pessimistic assumptions. Which means we can confidently estimate Fukushima has released far more radiation than all the coal burned in human history and all the coal remaining in the ground that could be burned combined.

This doesn't mean that nuclear power is overall a bad idea, but it's definitely not because coal is a worse radioactivity concern. From what I've heard this particular misleading talking point has been going around even before it started circulating on the internet, I remember someone telling me that it was going around Stanford decades ago. People should be cautious with counterintuitive factoids like this, because often they spread because they are too good to check.

Fascinating. I have held this to be true for a very long time, but your point seems to check out. The only counterargument I wonder about is if the dispersal is different in a way relevant to health risks. I.e., maybe Fukushima makes the immediate area very irradiated, but the Earth in general is ~unaffected, whereas coal makes the Earth in general relevantly more irradiated.

The title of that article is laughably false. The underlying point it is based on, that under normal operation a nuclear plant releases less radioactive material into the environment than a coal plant, is technically true but grossly misleading.

I addressed this in the footnote.

the radioactivity concern is concentrated purely into the possibility of something going wrong.

It is a quite common myth that living near a nuclear power plant emits radiation during ongoing operations.

I addressed this in the footnote.

But it's not true that "for the energy generated, more radiation is given out by fly ash". You didn't say "so long as nothing goes wrong", so the average amount of radiation released per energy produced includes the risk of disaster. And since nuclear power plants involve significantly radioactive material and coal plants don't, even a tiny risk is enough to push the average way above coal plants. The fact that Fukushima alone released more radioactivity than the fly ash we would get from burning all coal deposits on Earth makes this clear.

It is a quite common myth that living near a nuclear power plant emits radiation during ongoing operations.

Then just say "nuclear power plants release virtually no radiation under normal operation". Don't try to make it sound like nuclear beats coal in terms of radiation, on a technicality sufficiently narrow that both you and the Scientific American article you link (and the people I've seen bring up this talking point before) stumble into outright falsehood. Nuclear beats coal on plenty of metrics, there is no need to compare them in terms of radioactivity besides the appeal of being counterintuitive.

It’s just hard to process low probablity, high impact events with common heuristics. It’s uncomfortable to mix a very low imprecise number with a very high imprecise number. You either approximate high impact to infinity and swear off nuclear or round off low probability to zero, seeing ‘the norm’ as what usually happens and the high impact event as an outlier. But this sort of scenario requires a norm reversal.

If an exploding nuclear plant releases more than all the routine radioactivity taken together, the ‘outlier’ is more significant than the ‘norm’. If you take a unit of radioactivity emitted by nuclear power at random, 99%+ it’s going to be from an uncontrolled discharge – routine operation radioactivity is irrelevant noise by comparison. Like it’s absurd to try to minimize terrorism in the US by calling 9/11 an ‘outlier’ – if you take a victim of terrorism at random, they’re likely from 9/11. If you care about impact, the small attacks are the outliers. If any data point should be shaved off for deviating from the norm, it’s them.

The problem with radioactivity is that it’s still not measuring impact, it just sounds scary. And coal plants have killed more people than nuclear plants with failures included.

Wouldn’t the rarity of the catastrophic failure matter as well? Other than 3 mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, I don’t think there’s been a catastrophic failure of a nuclear plant and we’ve had them for over 50 years. We’ve been using the technology for 18,000 days, or over a million hours with only a handful of failures. At some point the calculations would show an infinitesimal risk that could and probably should be neglected. We don’t include 9/11 type events in our calculations of building safety because the odds of a passenger jet hitting a building is small enough to neglect.

And if the question is generally is it safe, I think given the rarity of these events, we’re taking the release from a catastrophic failure and dividing it by the low odds (best guess one in a million) which is probably not as much as people think.

Wouldn’t the rarity of the catastrophic failure matter as well?

Which is why you do enough math to sanity-check the comparison. As I mentioned, Fukushima released more radioactivity than would be released by burning all the coal deposits on Earth. Nuclear power plants involve relevant amounts of radioactivity, coal plants don't. The fact that a release like Fukushima happened even once implies the odds aren't low enough to overcome the massive difference in radioactivity. Nuclear has plenty of advantages, and the risk of catastrophic failure is low enough that those other advantages might easily outweigh it, but being less of a radiation risk than coal is not one of them.

At some point the calculations would show an infinitesimal risk that could and probably should be neglected.

No. My point was, that number should never ever be rounded off to zero, despite our natural tendency to do so. That very very very small, extremely difficult to calculate probability, is the entirety of the problem for nuclear. Round something else up.

If it costs X dollars to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic failure by 1% and the same amount to reduce routine radioactivity by 50 %, then somewhat counterintuitively you should choose the former. And if all your efforts to stop terrorism focus on preventing ‘lone wolf’ type attacks, you are ignoring most of the problem. I think most of the anti-terrorism stuff would have been silly one way or the other, and I like nuclear, but this is just math.

I’ll agree — if you’re the engineering team. Then yes, I want you to make your plant as safe as can be done with the money and time available.

On the other hand, I think as far as public debates, or public policy, a less than one in a million chance is not worth debating and in fact quite often means nothing will get done at all because the chance of something bad happening is not and can never be zero. And if you’re debating whether or not to build a skyscraper, there’s no reason to include “it might get struck by an airplane and collapse” simply because that kind of failure is so rare that brining it up as a part of the debate on building one would skew the debate against even needed buildings or technology. It stagnates society.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats