> -----Original Message----- > From: John Rose [mailto:[email protected]] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: TimTyler [mailto:[email protected]] > > >> > > >> Stuart Russell's own example counts against his thesis: > > >> Irrational fear of nuclear power is the problem that prevents its > > >> deployment - causing many more deaths in coal mines as a direct > > >> consequence. In fact, nuclear power is - and always has been - a > > >> very safe energy-producing technology. > > > You have to update these arguments when using Chernobyl as an > > > example with the effects from the Fukushima nuclear disaster where > > > the total death count may be in the millions when fully calculated. > > > > There appears to be some way to go to reach that figure: > > > > http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/5-years- > later- > > number-deaths-caused-fukushima-nuclear-radiation-leak-0 > > -- > > > > Oh man... lol. > > That's fine, what doesn't kill you makes you more antifragile. > > "One of a family should be discarded for the good of the whole family; a > family for the good of the village; a village for the good of a district; and > for > one's own good the world itself should be abandoned." (Lokaniti) >
OK so having spent some time in the nuclear industry, being pro before being con, and then updating myself on the reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear "accident" now nearing its 6th year anniversary there still is no public coming-to-terms on where the nuclear cores are. As far as I can tell, one core exploded into the atmosphere back in 2011 and the other two have melted through containment into the ground. So the associated cancer effects throughout the world are essentially just beginning since the contaminants have yet to work through the environment and the 2 cores melted into the ground are in the early stages of proliferation. These effects will last thousands of years. What is the point in relation to AGI? 1. Contemporary humans systems accept and learn to cope with accidents of this new magnitude AFTER the accident occurs. 2. Being cautious is not being anti-science. The Fukushima Daiichi disaster was easily preventable but since the danger is not generally understood by the public and the public is most threatened those that understand the danger must make their voices heard and demand that a plan is developed for dealing with such an accident. In relation to AGI studying the reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi disaster is important, versus the details of the accident itself once we come to terms with the severity since it effects all future generations of people and the present generation controls that effect so we have a responsibility. It's easy for small groups of people and organizations to succumb to trendiness, financial gain and hypocrisy while taking for granted what's really important and ignoring risk to the public wellbeing. It's very unclear with Fukushima on who is taking responsibility. To top it off, the risks of AGI are far more difficult to understand and predict than a radiation accident especially for the public. John ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
