A Level 7 (Chernobyl/2011 Japan level) nuclear accident will take place by end of 2020.

Created by ceterisparibus on 2011-11-23; known on 2021-01-01; judged wrong by bobpage on 2021-01-01.

  • ceterisparibus estimated 40% on 2011-11-23
  • gwern said “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale#Level_7 to be judged, of course, by the IAEAon 2011-11-23
  • gwern estimated 30% and said “nuclear power plants operating since 1954 or the last 57 years; 2 level 7 accidents for 1 every 28.5 years. odds of next one within 10 years? poisson distribution, but won’t bother calculating iton 2011-11-23
  • JoshuaZ estimated 25% and said “Risk goes up as plants age, but goes down as new accidents make people more careful. Not sure that Poisson dis is the right model. on 2011-11-23
  • gwern said “arguably as plants get older, the crews get more experienced and the procedures more tested, etc. the human element was key in fukushima, 3 mile island, and chernobyl. doesn’t the dispersion of accidents look poisson-like?on 2011-11-23
  • bobpage estimated 45% on 2011-11-24
  • Anubhav said “Intuition would suggest that the probability of an accident can’t remain constant with time, so Poisson isn’t the right model. Empirical data overrules intuition, but…. three data points? on 2011-11-24
  • JoshuaZ said “Two data points. Three Mile Island was only level 7. But I think Gwern is correct in that empirically modeling accident frequencies in other contexts Poisson seems to work. So would be right to do. But 2 data points? Hard to make that reliable. on 2011-11-24
  • Anubhav said “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidentsI’ll see if excel can fit Poisson to this list. on 2011-11-24
  • Anubhav said “Actually, I’m not sure which of the lists here I should use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidentson 2011-11-24
  • JoshuaZ said “Well, if both lists end up looking Poisson then it should be safe. If neither does then that’s not a good model. If only one does shrug? on 2011-11-24
  • Anubhav said “http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50825627/nuclear%20accidents.xlsxTried fitting civilian accidents/ accidents + incidents (see the worksheets). No match. Military accidents are obviously not Poisson, a single glance tells you that.on 2011-11-24
  • gwern said “yeah, military nuclear accidents obviously goes down as time passes – new developments cease, old nukes are refined and miniaturized, etc. soviet union was pretty careless early on. expect a big drop post-cold war.on 2011-11-24
  • Anubhav said “Yeah, there was a big drop in the 70s and a bigger one post cold-war. Anyhow, civilian accidents per decade tend to cluster around the 3-6 range, and the probability of there being 3,4,5 or 6 accidents seems to be roughly equal. on 2011-11-25
  • Anubhav said “If I include civilian ‘incidents’, it’s the same story, but number of accidents are now restricted to the 4-8 range. I notice that the upper bound is twice the lower bound in each case, but I doubt that’s anything but a flukeon 2011-11-25
  • Anubhav said “http://bit.ly/u3H7sM See the BIN worksheet. Used that model with a binomial distribution assuming probability of accident being level 7 = 1/26. Given that we’ve already had one lv7 accident this decade, the probability of another one = 7%. on 2011-11-25
  • Anubhav said “Of course, the binomial assumption isn’t exactly a good one, seeing as we know it doesn’t follow Poisson. But I couldn’t think of any other way to solve this… on 2011-11-25
  • Jayson Virissimo said “This thread is a good example of why we really need a Less Wrong style comment system attached to the predictions.on 2011-11-25
  • Anubhav said “^Seconded. Whoever gets rid of the bullets and the quotation marks will earn my undying gratitude. on 2011-11-25
  • Anubhav estimated 7% on 2011-11-26
  • chemotaxis101 estimated 40% on 2011-11-26
  • RobertLumley estimated 25% on 2011-11-27
  • gimpf estimated 25% on 2011-11-28
  • TrE estimated 7% on 2011-11-29
  • Grognor estimated 23% on 2011-12-05
  • Serge estimated 17% on 2011-12-06
  • ceterisparibus changed their prediction from “A Level 7(Chernobyl/2011 Japan level) nuclear accident will take place by end of 2020.” on 2011-12-10
  • saturn estimated 13% on 2011-12-11
  • JoshuaZ estimated 31% and said “Adjusting upwards due to this: http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/second-life-the-questionable-safety-of-life-extensions-russian-nuclear-power-planon 2011-12-13
  • Tiresias estimated 10% on 2011-12-20
  • Serge estimated 20% on 2012-03-06
  • seifip estimated 20% on 2013-04-14
  • themusicgod1 estimated 38% on 2016-09-30
  • pranomostro estimated 20% on 2018-11-25
  • pranomostro estimated 10% on 2018-11-25
  • Baeboo estimated 3% on 2018-11-26
  • Baeboo estimated 5% on 2018-11-26
  • Bruno Parga said “Mark wrong?on 2021-01-01
  • bobpage said “I don’t see one on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_countryon 2021-01-01
  • bobpage   judged this prediction wrong on 2021-01-01.

Please log in to respond to or judge prediction