科学与数学ourworldindata.org
在所有主要能源中，核能最安全
Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
2017 — 2018，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
Our World in Data 的这篇文章用各能源的死亡人数数据对比，指出在所有主要能源中，核能按单位发电量计算是最安全的，远低于煤炭等化石燃料。文章试图用统计事实纠正公众对核能风险的过度恐惧。
为什么经久不衰：它用数据挑战了'核能危险'的直觉认知，在气候变化和能源转型讨论持续升温的今天，仍是关于核能安全性的经典参考。
HN 评论精选
核能的感知风险被夸大，作为低碳过渡能源很有价值，环保界的反核立场难以自洽。
人们害怕核能就像害怕坐飞机一样：技术上很安全，但一旦出事就极其严重且无法挽回，所以感知风险远大于实际风险。作者认为全面转向核能是错误，但它是摆脱煤电、等待可再生能源成熟期间的好过渡方案。他不理解为何环保人士坚决反核，比如德国弃核反而导致短期内更多污染。
simias查看英文原文
People are scared of nuclear energy for the same reason that they're scared of taking an airplane. Even though it's technically and statistically very safe, the perceived risk appears much greater. In particular in both cases when something goes wrong it tends to go extremely wrong and you're completely helpless to stop it. In contrast getting in a car accident or slowly suffocating in coal power plant emissions seem manageable. Personally I'm of the opinion that going all nuclear would be a mistake but on the other hand it's a great way to move away from coal and petrol while we're still figuring out how to scale renewable energies (and maybe fusion, but that's still a moonshot). It provides cheap, reliable and reasonably safe energy with very little CO2 emissions. I'm more worried about global warming than Fukushima and I'd gladly trade even a dozen of Fukushima-type incidents in the next decades (highly unlikely) if it could stop global warming and its dire, hard-to-revert consequences. In particular I genuinely do not understand why most ecologists seem to be staunchly anti-nuclear. I can understand asking for better funding in renewable R&D and planning for a transition but, at least in Europe, ecologists seem to favor dropping nuclear immediately, no matter the cost. For instance they applauded when Germany decided to completely stop producing nuclear energy, even if it meant more pollution in the short term. I find that hard to justify.
核能的低死亡率掩盖了低频但毁灭性的事故风险，安全壳的规模和质量至关重要。
核能致死人数少是因为灾难发生时有时间疏散，但代价是偶尔会毁掉一座城市。作者列举了 SL-1、三里岛、AVR、切尔诺贝利、福岛等事故，指出坚固的大型安全壳曾两次阻止堆芯熔毁演变成大灾难，而一些新推出的小型反应堆设计却以'不可能熔毁'为由省略安全壳。
Animats查看英文原文
It doesn't kill many people, because even when there's a disaster, there's time to evacuate. But you lose an entire city once in a while. Major reactor disasters so far: - SL-1. Steam explosion due to control rod lifted too far during maintenance. Small experimental reactor, built in the middle of nowhere (Idaho Reactor Test Station) for good reason. Inherently unsafe design. - Three Mile Island. Meltdown due to cooling water failure due to instrument confusion. Contained by good containment vessel. No casualties. That's what should have happened at Fukushima. - AVR pebble bed reactor. Pebble jam, radiation leak into ground. Contained, but too much of a mess to decommission. - Chernobyl. Meltdown and fire due to operational error during testing. Totally inadequate containment. Entire region evacuated and contaminated for decades. - Fukushima. Loss of coolant and meltdown. Containment vessel too small, reactor cores melted through in three reactors. Containment problem well known in advance; Peach Bottom PA has same design. A big, strong, containment vessel can keep a meltdown from becoming a major disaster and has done so at least twice. Size matters; a large containment vessel faces lower pressures when all the water boils to become steam. But a good worst-case containment vessel can cost as much as the rest of the plant. Some of the recently-touted small reactor designs try to omit a containment vessel on the grounds that their design couldn't possibly melt down. That's probably not a good approach.
文章的统计口径只覆盖发电环节，忽略了核燃料全生命周期的成本和排放。
这些数据似乎只计算了发电环节，没有计入铀矿开采、浓缩、反应堆建设、废料处理和退役等环节。开采低品位矿石时，核电站的效率可能和燃煤电厂一样低。核能支持者往往只聚焦核能表现最好的发电环节，而忽视整个系统的高昂代价。
the_gastropod查看英文原文
It appears that these figures take into account _just_ energy production. They don't seem include the mining, enriching, construction of reactors, disposal of waste, decommissioning reactors, etc. When mining low-grade ore (which isn't uncommon, and is becoming more command as high-grade ore becomes more scarce), nuclear plants are as inefficient as coal-fired plants [1]. Nuclear advocates tend to ignore the full system, and focus on where nuclear shines: power production. The setup to get to that point is extremely costly. [1] https://www.stormsmith.nl/i05.html
仅以死亡人数衡量安全忽略了大规模疏散和土地不可用等重大代价。
这篇文章完全用死亡人数来衡量安全性，这虽然让核能显得很好，但不是合适的衡量方式。财产使用权的剥夺也很重要：福岛事故后约15万人因辐射担忧被迫疏散。
skybrian查看英文原文
This article is written entirely in terms of death counts. I guess that's a good proxy for safety and makes nuclear power look good, but I don't think it's an appropriate way measuring impact. Denial of use of property is pretty important too. About 150,000 people had to evacuate after the Fukushima disaster due to radiation concerns [1]. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/5-years-after-fukushima-by-the-numbers-1.3480914
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如果月球只有 1 像素：一个极其精确的太阳系模型（2014）
If the moon were only 1 pixel: A tediously accurate solar system model (2014)
一个网页版太阳系模型，以“如果月亮只有 1 像素”的真实比例呈现：你必须一路横向滚动，才能体会行星之间空旷到何等程度。
科学与数学上首页 7 次 · 2014–2025joshworth.com编辑精选沉浸式线性代数（2016）
Immersive Linear Algebra (2016)
《Immersive Linear Algebra》是一本完全免费、开放在线的线性代数“超文本教科书”，其最大特色是大量可交互的图形：读者可以直接拖动、操作图中的向量、矩阵和变换…
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2015–2024immersivemath.com编辑精选如何将贝果切成两个相连的半环（2009）
How to Slice a Bagel into Two Linked Halves (2009)
数学家 George Hart 的经典教程，演示如何用一刀把贝果切成两个相互扣住的环，并附上切割步骤与数学原理。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2022georgehart.com“犹太问题”：一组用于歧视的数学题
Jewish problems
一篇 arXiv 论文，整理并讨论苏联时期犹太学生在申请大学数学系时被问到的特殊数学难题：这些题往往有简单解法却极难想到，被用作面试中拒绝犹太考生的手段。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2011–2021arxiv.org你的身体并非为长久而造：人类死亡率数据的一课
Your body wasn’t built to last: a lesson from human mortality rates
文章从人类死亡率随年龄变化的统计规律出发，解释身体并非为长久使用而设计：年轻时死亡风险较低，之后随年龄近似指数上升，像复杂系统在不断累积损伤。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2018gravityandlevity.wordpress.com