Peer2Politics
135.8K views | +0 today
Follow
Peer2Politics
on peer-to-peer dynamics in politics, the economy and organizations
Curated by jean lievens
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by jean lievens
Scoop.it!

Mobilising a counter-hegemonic climate movement | P2P Foundation

Mobilising a counter-hegemonic climate movement | P2P Foundation | Peer2Politics | Scoop.it
As concerned citizens mobilise for climate change demonstrations across the world, never has it been more important to embrace a collective demand for ‘system change’ as the surest way to limit global warming and ensure environmental sustainability.
No comment yet.
Scooped by jean lievens
Scoop.it!

Lecture at the World Energy Congress - South Korea, by Layne Hartsell

The NRC (Nuclear RegulatoryAgency) Probabilistic Risk Assessment gives the precautionary perspective, which is generally a priori, not manifested or empirical. The risk is stated to be at 1:1,000,000 chance of a nuclear accident. At the moment, there are 432reactors in the world. If we do the math, the probability of an accident is one every 2,500 years or the entire history of Western civilization back to the Greeks. Three reactor meltdowns at one time, that would be 1 million cubed giving 18 zeros; a major problem. I would argue that perhaps since it was in one place there may be a problem with the statistics of time and place, but only slight changes to 18 zeros. Prediction is one thing, and empirical is another. The evidence now shows that instead of a nuclear accident every 2,500years we could expect one every seven years, if we look over the past 35 years there have been 5 meltdowns, or one every 7 years. There were meltdowns before that, but this is giving the technology the benefit of the doubt. If we were to say there were five meltdowns over 35 years, that’s bad enough, but if we say there were three meltdowns in one month, or..over a few days at Daiichi, then the picture looks even worse.

 
jean lievens's insight:

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013 at 12:01 am and is filed under Collective Intelligence, P2P Energy, P2P Epistemology, P2P Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 
No comment yet.