# What are your opinions about nuclear power? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 10, 2014, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955 "2014-02-10T07:08:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/141 "2014-02-28T23:12:46Z")
death rates =/= safety. 100’s of thousands of displaced, fishing and agricultural industries ruined and 100’s of billions of dollars in remediation are all real, factual dangers. “At least no one died yet!” is pure emotion. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/142 "2014-02-28T23:25:49Z")
I am not crazy about nuclear power but think it will become widespread. Advances will no doubt be made in solar power, but I don’t feel it’ll ever be enough to meet energy needs. And wind power? Covering half the Earth with those turbines? Not gonna happen. Nuclear’s going to happen whether we like it or not is my feeling. That’s my gut feeling. Couldn’t point to any cites to tell you why. ---
**Author:** ![Clawdio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d07c76/32.png) [@Clawdio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clawdio)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/143 "2014-03-01T12:51:32Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > 100’s of thousands of displaced, fishing and agricultural industries ruined and 100’s of billions of dollars in remediation are all real, factual dangers. Well, OK. But you can say same for hydro-electric (dam failures), oil, gas, and coal which have killed more, displaced more, and ruined more sea life (and I’m guessing with no cite - agriculture) than nuclear. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/144 "2014-03-01T13:04:58Z")
> [@Clawdio](#): > > Well, OK. But you can say same for hydro-electric (dam failures), oil, gas, and coal which have killed more, displaced more, and ruined more sea life (and I’m guessing with no cite - agriculture) than nuclear. Which is not surprising as they are more widely used. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/145 "2014-03-01T15:58:46Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > [Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States) > > [ul] > [li]there have been at least 56 accidents at nuclear reactors in the United States (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage)[/li] > [li]The United States General Accountability Office reported more than 150 incidents from 2001 to 2006 alone of nuclear plants not performing within acceptable safety guidelines.[/li] > [li]In 2006, it said: “Since 2001, the ROP has resulted in more than 4,000 inspection findings concerning nuclear power plant licensees’ failure to fully comply with NRC regulations and industry standards for safe plant operation, and NRC has subjected more than 75 percent (79) of the 103 operating plants to increased oversight for varying periods”.[/li] > [li]Seventy-one percent of all recorded major nuclear accidents, including meltdowns, explosions, fires, and loss of coolants, occurred in the United States, and they happened during both normal operations as well as emergency situations such as floods, droughts, and earthquakes.[/li][/ul] > > I remain unconvinced by nuclear proponents’ emotional pleas about nuclear power’s safety and even less convinced that _even more_ safety regulations would somehow make it in any way economical. All of this is industrial and not nuclear-specific. How many traffic deaths, traffic fines, warnings, have been handed out in a similar period? How much property damage and liability insurance costs have we all cumulatively bore because of car accidents? In summation, driving a car is more dangerous than nuclear power. ETA: There’s a Wikipedia article on Fossil-fuel power stations, but not one on Fossil-fuel power station accidents. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/146 "2014-03-01T18:42:36Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > All of this is industrial and not nuclear-specific. > > How many traffic deaths, traffic fines, warnings, have been handed out in a similar period? How much property damage and liability insurance costs have we all cumulatively bore because of car accidents? > > In summation, driving a car is more dangerous than nuclear power. > > ETA: There’s a Wikipedia article on Fossil-fuel power stations, but not one on Fossil-fuel power station accidents. Why is that? Because it’s an evil conspiracy to suppress a miracle power source? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/147 "2014-03-01T19:29:10Z")
The cite has already been given that fossil fuel generation is on a per unit of power generated basis. [Here](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/) again: > [@](#): > > Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr) > > Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity) > > Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity) > > Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity) > > Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity) > > Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity) > > Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy) > > Solar (rooftop) 440 (\< 1% global electricity) > > Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity) > > Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity) > > Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush) > > It is notable that the U.S. death rates for coal are so much lower than for China, strictly a result of regulation and the Clean Air Act (Scott et al., 2005). It is also notable that the Clean Air Act is one of the most life-saving pieces of legislation ever adopted by any country in history. Still, about 10,000 die from coal use in the U.S. each year, and another thousand from natural gas. Hydro is dominated by a few rare large dam failures like Banqiao in China in 1976 which killed about 171,000 people. Workers still regularly fall off wind turbines during maintenance but since relatively little electricity production comes from wind, the totals deaths are small. Nuclear has the lowest deathprint, even with the worst-case Chernobyl numbers and Fukushima projections, uranium mining deaths, and using the Linear No-Treshold Dose hypothesis (see Helman/2012/03/10). The dozen or so U.S. deaths in nuclear have all been in the weapons complex or are modeled from general LNT effects. The reason the nuclear number is small is that it produces so much electricity per unit. There just are not many nuclear plants. And the two failures have been in GenII plants with old designs. All new builds must be GenIII and higher, with passive redundant safety systems … If the 80s want the argument back they can’t have it because it is valid now. Nuclear is orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels. Yes _orders of magnitude_. Same ball park as wind. Both are beat by natural gas on a cost basis at least right now (although natural gas prices may change as demand continues to increase). ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/148 "2014-03-01T20:09:36Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > I can’t agree with you. I believe that even Chinese lives are worth something and it’s deeply disturbing to read someone who doesn’t. Then you should wholeheartedly support nuclear power in China, as it is thousands of times safer than the alternatives. You keep going on about Fukashima, as though it proves that nuclear power is somehow dangerous. Even with the worst possible scenario, a combination of earthquake, tsunami, and poor maintenance of the plant, it was still not particularly serious. Coal plants cause more death, damage and displacement in normal operation than this disaster did - it just happens to not be to the end users of the power. Which rather makes a mockery of your claim to care about all people. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/149 "2014-03-02T00:50:39Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Because it’s an evil conspiracy to suppress a miracle power source? Basically. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/150 "2014-03-02T01:54:09Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > 1980 called, wants its argument back. How is this not a valid question? 500,000 people are dying in China every single year due to petroleum; why can I not weigh the 50 odd accidents against this fact? If even half of the predictions for global climate change come out true, 10 Chernobyl disasters would be less damaging to human populations in death count, economic disaster and even dislocation than continuing to pump CO2 into our atmosphere. This, to me, is why nuclear power is a no-brainer. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/151 "2014-03-02T02:25:39Z")
Oh about 30,000 people die every year from cars, and another 30,000 people die per year from guns. We don’t care. Doing something about those things would be inconvenient. It’s silly to turn around and claim OMFG nukes are safer we must go nuke!!1! Please. It’s simply the last desperate argument nuke proponents have left and it isn’t fooling anyone. If fossil fuel-related health problems are such a big deal why do we still use them? Do you really expect me to believe nuke proponents think, “we must save lives whatever the cost!” There are far cheaper ways of saving lives than building more nuke plants, encouraging proliferation and storing plutonium in above ground casks all over the planet. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/152 "2014-03-02T02:56:16Z")
> [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#): > > How is this not a valid question? 500,000 people are dying in China every single year due to petroleum; why can I not weigh the 50 odd accidents against this fact? If even half of the predictions for global climate change come out true, 10 Chernobyl disasters would be less damaging to human populations in death count, economic disaster and even dislocation than continuing to pump CO2 into our atmosphere. This, to me, is why nuclear power is a no-brainer. I think we’ll have to come around to that way of thinking in the next 50-100 years. > [@levdrakon](#): > > Oh about 30,000 people die every year from cars, and another 30,000 people die per year from guns. We don’t care. Doing something about those things would be inconvenient. It’s silly to turn around and claim OMFG nukes are safer we must go nuke!!1!\ This is part of what I’m not getting; the deaths from nuclear power are so low, and everyone freaks about about the chance of problems with nuclear power, but we accept 30,000 deaths from driving each year as the cost of doing business - I’m having trouble spanning this massive disconnect. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/153 "2014-03-02T04:42:39Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > If fossil fuel-related health problems are such a big deal why do we still use them? To a large extent, because of people like you who go around spreading misinformation about the risks of nuclear power. Nuclear power, whilst not 100% safe, is orders of magnitude safer than using fossil fuels. That’s been cited many times in this thread. There’s no denying that it could be made safer still, but that’s not an argument against it, it’s one _in favour_ of it, as it will make it even better than it already is in comparison to fossil fuel power. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/154 "2014-03-02T15:03:01Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > … If fossil fuel-related health problems are such a big deal why do we still use them? … Good question. Mainly because we do not value lives very much it seems, not really, unless they are lost in a dramatic fashion. If it is “news”, an event, we notice and value them; if it is the every day deaths adding up inexorably … we do not seem to give a shit. Put in the best light, it is because we humans tend to be horrible at risk management, falling for all sorts of cognitive illusions and percieving things that in fact are low risk as scary and things that are high risk as safe. Viwed less generously because fossil fuel generated power is cheap and we don’t have to see the people die and can fool ourselves into thinking that our cheap power is not the cause. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/155 "2014-03-02T19:43:19Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > n your assessment, what is the actual danger of an nuclear incident in Japan? What factors does it depend on? What are the risks? Is it completely or almost completely without risk? What would be the possible consequences? > > You are stating a fact, so I presume you have a good handle on the situation. I’m interested in your assessment. You seem to think that I’m equating nuclear power with kittens and unicorns. I don’t know how I can restate it: nuclear power is very dangerous. It is, however, less dangerous than fossil fuels. What’s my proof? The history of nuclear power. We’ve already discussed the comparitive deaths between fossil fuels and nuclear power and NP wins easily. I am not as familiar with NP outside of the US but in the US the most serious accident was Three Mile Island. Nobody died and almost nobody was evacuated permanently. It hardly compares with the single BP oil rig explosion in the Gulf a few years ago. We haven’t really discussed the role of fossil fuels in AGW. The study comparing deaths doesn’t (to my knowledge) consider forcasts regarding AGW. For example, the entire island nation of Kiribati–a population of over 100k–might [have to be relocated](http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/global-warming-causes-island-nation-to-sink/) because of the rising ocean due in large part to AGW. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/156 "2014-03-03T16:04:14Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > 1980 called, wants its argument back. Why bother? He has one single “gotcha.” Actually, as I have stated prior in the thread, I don’t participate much in GD simply because of this. People are more interested in proving a single point and repeat it ad nauseum. Eventually the other people get tired of responding, and the person thinks they win. The only reason I got into this was that the OP was asking how to help convince people to accept nuclear power, and I wanted to have a discussion and not a shouting match where people repeat the same thing. It looks like that’s not possible. I’ll respond to a few more points, but really, since I’m not into this to “win” the debate, and I seriously doubt that anything I say would convince people, then I’ll do as I stated in my first post: > [@me](#): > > However, I don’t get involved in shouting matches, and if it’s just more of “you don’t know what you’re talking about” which I get a lot from people who are far less informed, then I can let you get back to a thread where everyone agrees that nukes are the greatest thing since sliced bread. > [@Steophan](#): > > You keep going on about Fukashima, as though it proves that nuclear power is somehow dangerous. Even with the worst possible scenario, a combination of earthquake, tsunami, and poor maintenance of the plant, it was still not particularly serious. Factually incorrect. As posted above, it was a coin flip away from requiring the evacuation of 50 million people, and everything going to hell. In fact, it still isn’t out of danger. The number four plant was in shut down for maintenance and the entire nuclear fuel was in the spent fuel pool, along with the standard waste. The spent fuel pools are built up high in the reactor and the supporting structure was damaged in the quake. A strong aftershock, which Japan has had many of, could send it crashing down, and experts say that the subsequent nuclear accident could result in the evacuation of 10 million people. As the spent fuel pools are not in the same type of superstructure which the reactors are contained, the danger is that they go right through the roof. The larger the quake, the larger the aftershocks. This is the danger which bothers the experts the most. Anyway, you opinion has been noted. > [@Deeg](#): > > What’s my proof? The history of nuclear power. Opinion noted. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/157 "2014-03-03T21:06:40Z")
“A coin flip away from requiring the evacuation of 50 million people, and everything going to hell …”? I know that such has been popularized but, no, [not really](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/fukushima_disaster_new_information_about_worst_case_scenarios.single.html). > [@](#): > > The administration was bound by exposure-level standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Those standards don’t translate into “danger” in the commonly used sense of the word; exposure at such low levels doesn’t make people sick or render them more likely to get cancer someday. There’s a slightly higher risk of fatal cancer—an additional 0.5 percent—for those who receive a cumulative lifetime dose of 100 millisieverts (a measure of radiation’s effect on the body). The EPA standards set trigger points for protecting the general public well below that level, at a dose low enough that the risk of additional cancers is undetectable. … > > … By the last three days of March, the computer modeling produced results that settled the debate: A plume delivering radiation doses exceeding U.S. standards would come no closer to Tokyo than 75 miles, so Americans should stay put. In an April 1, 2011, email to Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Holdren spelled out details. “Our optimism, such as it is … comes not from any assumption that the situation at Fukushima is under control but rather from modeling that shows the worst-plausible releases from one or more reactors at Fukushima would not cross [the U.S. guidelines] in Tokyo even in the event of adverse weather,” Holdren wrote. “Only with big releases from the spent-fuel pools, combined with even more perverse weather than [the scientists deemed realistic], could the [guidelines] be crossed in Tokyo, and even then, according to the modeling to date, not by much,” so “even in these extreme circumstances, sheltering in place might be all you’d want to do.” … There was no “coin flip away” … there was in fact no plausible scenario in which such would have happened … popularized reports playing to fear in order to drive eyeballs notwithstanding. No question that Fukushima was a wake up call to inadequate oversight by the Japanese government. But even with what basically amounted to a perfect storm of governmental incompetence, a host of design flaws, an earthquake and tsunami, and far from ideal preparedness, its harm was, and would have been under plausible scenarios, still far less than what we accept as the every day death toll from fossil fuel power generation, and what is, indirectly, now being caused by Japan’s switch to more fossil fuel power. I am no fan of nuclear. My take remains that it is past its time at the teat of subsidies and that without suckling there it cannot compete on cost even with a fair price on carbon and other greenhouse gases (I’ll include methane releases in natural gas production/distribution.) Its future role, to my read, will be and should be limited on that basis. I believe that a wider roll out of a diverse portfolio of renewables, including but not limited to wind, integrated with natural gas and power storage capabilities, integrated into geographically disperse networks that diminish the impact of localized intermittencies, and utilizing some distributed power generation as well (such as factory roof top solar) is a better value. But if all we cared about was _safety_ then nuclear, while far from risk free, is far far safer than the fossil fuels that will be used in its stead in Japan and elsewhere. You want to portray that one fact as a “gotcha” then so be it. The link above states it well: > [@](#): > > … the public deserves to know what the best available science shows. Whatever conclusions people draw about the implications of the accident, the following should be borne in mind: The claim that an evacuation of Tokyo could have been necessary is based on flimsy, easily rebuttable evidence. Furthermore, the falsity of that claim is indicative of the distortions in much of the Fukushima news coverage. That coverage has given rise to baseless fears about Fukushima that have heavily influenced public opinion. It is time to dispel those fears. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/158 "2014-03-17T16:02:03Z")
A random gas line explosion in NYC kills more people (eight) than Fukushima disaster: [http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/15/us/aging-gas-infrastructure/](http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/15/us/aging-gas-infrastructure/) “Experts” say that large cities are riddled with aging gas lines and one calls the number of explosions “an epidemic”. ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/159 "2014-03-17T16:34:16Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > A random gas line explosion in NYC kills more people (eight) than Fukushima disaster: [http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/15/us/aging-gas-infrastructure/](http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/15/us/aging-gas-infrastructure/) > > “Experts” say that large cities are riddled with aging gas lines and one calls the number of explosions “an epidemic”. It’s going to continue to happen,unfortunately. Most of the infrastructure in American cities,especially in the Northeast and Industrial Midwest dates from The Great Depression, which was almost 100 years ago. The people who installed those items certainly didn’t foresee that major cities would be unwilling to maintain them due to cost or that they might be in use in some cases 100 years later. For those who think that nuclear power supporters (among them me) are overstating the dangers of fossil fuels: I have worked at three refineries where there were more than 100k people within a five-mile radius of the facility. If there had been a major explosion or a serious leakage of vapor, the death toll would be in the hundreds or the thousands within MINUTES. I personally know of two gigantic propane storage tanks where if they exploded everything within five miles would be **completely destroyed**. Few nuclear accidents are going to occur with enough rapidity to create those levels of devastation in such a short order. People who live near refineries are literally (not figuratively) rolling the dice that they aren’t killed by an accident at the facility. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955/160 "2014-03-18T02:23:21Z")
> [@nevadaexile](#): > > People who live near refineries are literally (not figuratively) rolling the dice that they aren’t killed by an accident at the facility. No, I don’t think anyone is _literally_ rolling any dice in that scenario. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-opinions-about-nuclear-power/680955.md?page=9)