Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fukushima

podniesinski.pl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 227 posts

Re: Fukushima

#191

Post by tptacek »

OscarCunningham wrote: post #187
tptacek wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the limit per year. The figures you're seeing in this article are per hour . It's not immediately lethal, but it's drastically elevated.

The figures are mSv/year or µSv/hour, i.e. harmless.

Harmless? Doesn't 50mSv/yr imply a budget of 5.5uSv/hr? The numbers in the photos are higher than that.

... I mean, yes, they probably aren't statistically very harmful! Nothing like the Chernobyl exclusion zone, at least in the areas this person visited, and considering only ambient exposure.

Still, over the limit, and, like I said, drastically elevated. Fukushima unquestionably harmed its surrounding area.

Re: Fukushima

#192

Post by pdkl95 »

facepalm wrote: post #181
TeMPOraL wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory, there is such an option. In practice, no one will take it, because why should they? It's both a coordination problem and a short/long-term values problem. How do you convince an average Joe to reduce his quality of life now in order to secure some abstract better future later; a future, that will come to pass if and only if every other average Joe and Jane does the same? You can't, unless you're a god. And…

Presumably then controlling population growth is another way to save energy. I took that "how many earths does your life style require" - the evil half of my brain thought "if my lifestyle requires 1,5 earths, then it would be sustainable with one third less people than we have not"... Afaik China for example is trying to actively manage the population growth/consumption problem, and sometimes they managed to introdu…

> Presumably then controlling population growth

I take it you still haven't seen that TED talk. A key point Hans Rosling makes (which he expands upon in greater detail in several of his other talks). In this talk, he explains

    ... there are two things that can increase the energy use. First, population
    growth. Second, economic growth. Population growth will mainly occur among the
    poorest people here because they have high child mortality and they have many
    children per woman. ...
You may not have noticed, but China hasn't been very successful at legislating population growth. Meanwhile, some areas have slowed their population growth. Japan is actually concerned that they are losing population.

The way you control population is \to bring people up to a standard of living that no longer requires having large families (i.e. for farm work, etc). China knows this. They aren't stupid - they certainly understand the costs of allowing terrible ("equivalent to a pack/day cigarette habit") smog. China also understands that if they can stabilize their population by raising their lifestyle. Hence they are using incredible amount of coal as a short-term workaround while they work on the largest public-works infrastructure projects in the world (e.g. Three Gorges, their current breeder reactor project).

> some magic CO2-neutral power source

A nuclear power generator is not magic.

> save energy

You say this as if engineers aren't constantly creating new ways to make energy usage more efficient. Of course they have - engineers hate energy waste. We have been slowly improving efficiency. Obviously we should continue this process, but it will never be enough to significantly impact the the total energy used in the world.

> it seems to me that if "convenience X" involves a lot of energy, it will also involve a lot of nuisance

This is absolutely not true in general. Many things oonly become possible when you reach a minimum of energy.

Re: Fukushima

#193

Post by dragonwriter »

pdkl95 wrote: post #192
facepalm wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably then controlling population growth is another way to save energy. I took that "how many earths does your life style require" - the evil half of my brain thought "if my lifestyle requires 1,5 earths, then it would be sustainable with one third less people than we have not"... Afaik China for example is trying to actively manage the population growth/consumption problem, and sometimes they managed to introdu…

> Presumably then controlling population growth I take it you still haven't seen that TED talk. A key point Hans Rosling makes (which he expands upon in greater detail in several of his other talks). In this talk, he explains ... there are two things that can increase the energy use. First, population growth. Second, economic growth. Population growth will mainly occur among the poorest people here because they have…

> You may not have noticed, but China hasn't been very successful at legislating population growth.

The one-child policy was a targeted a population of around 1.2 billion in 2000. Actually population in 2000 was about 1.262 billion. I may not like the methods used by China, but calling it not very successful seems somewhat questionable.

> Meanwhile, some areas have slowed their population growth.

Like, say, China, which had a natural growth rate around 25 per 1000 when the one-child policy was adopted, dropped down to 11 and back up to around 16 in the mid 80s, then pretty consistently down since, to 7.58 in 2000, and around 5 for about the last decade.

Re: Fukushima

#195

Post by [deleted] »

benihana wrote: post #52
etangent wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am pro-nuclear, but the above comment is incredibly, maddeningly stupid. It's so amazingly stupid that I don't know where to begin. The hidden assumption that there was an actual alternative to MAD? That the USG used radiation fear-mongering to shove MAD down our throats? That the USSR didn't use propaganda? That radiation isn't a big deal? That radiation only stays around for 30 years (a common mistake is to assum…

Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[deleted]

Re: Fukushima

#196

Post by [deleted] »

benihana wrote: post #52
etangent wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am pro-nuclear, but the above comment is incredibly, maddeningly stupid. It's so amazingly stupid that I don't know where to begin. The hidden assumption that there was an actual alternative to MAD? That the USG used radiation fear-mongering to shove MAD down our throats? That the USSR didn't use propaganda? That radiation isn't a big deal? That radiation only stays around for 30 years (a common mistake is to assum…

Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[deleted]

Re: Fukushima

#197

Post by facepalm »

pdkl95 wrote: post #192
facepalm wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably then controlling population growth is another way to save energy. I took that "how many earths does your life style require" - the evil half of my brain thought "if my lifestyle requires 1,5 earths, then it would be sustainable with one third less people than we have not"... Afaik China for example is trying to actively manage the population growth/consumption problem, and sometimes they managed to introdu…

> Presumably then controlling population growth I take it you still haven't seen that TED talk. A key point Hans Rosling makes (which he expands upon in greater detail in several of his other talks). In this talk, he explains ... there are two things that can increase the energy use. First, population growth. Second, economic growth. Population growth will mainly occur among the poorest people here because they have…

I don't understand what you are trying to say. My point was that energy can be saved. I guess I tend to think more abstract than you. For example, population could be reduced by dropping a nuclear bomb - boom, energy saved. (I'm too lazy to go into details of population control here...).

That's of course not the solution I propose, it just abstractly proves the point that energy can be saved. In fact, as you mention with the washing machines example, the majority of people seem to get by on very little energy (even less than is required to power a washing machine).

All I said is that saving energy is another option, besides building more nuclear power plants or burning more coal.

And you seem to have missed that washing machines are not the major factor in power consumption that you make it out to be.

"it will never be enough to significantly impact the the total energy used in the world"

People will simply use all the energy they can get (even if you build lots and lots of nuclear power plants). That doesn't imply that they couldn't get by with less.

Re: Fukushima

#198

Post by foofoo55 »

ggreer wrote: post #17

I found the pictures fascinating, but the accompanying text marred my enjoyment. Considering the circumstances of the Fukushima disaster, the anti-nuclear sentiment really irked me. The Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami killed close to 20,000 people. The author completely ignored those victims. Instead, he focused on Fukushima, which will cause around 150 deaths from cancers. For every tragedy created by Fukushima, there a…

As with his Chernobyl interest, I believe he's focusing on how a nuclear disaster causes seemingly permanent loss of human habitat. This includes emotional upheaval, lost personal identity, and lost way of life, as well as the loss of future places of dwelling. In that focus, I believe he does a good job.

Re: Fukushima

#199

Post by [deleted] »

benihana wrote: post #52
etangent wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am pro-nuclear, but the above comment is incredibly, maddeningly stupid. It's so amazingly stupid that I don't know where to begin. The hidden assumption that there was an actual alternative to MAD? That the USG used radiation fear-mongering to shove MAD down our throats? That the USSR didn't use propaganda? That radiation isn't a big deal? That radiation only stays around for 30 years (a common mistake is to assum…

Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[deleted]

Re: Fukushima

#200

Post by 13years »

fridek wrote: post #189
13years wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burning coal does not produce more radioactive waste. It is just that under normal operating conditions more is released into the atmosphere from burning coal. However, if there is an accident, then you are talking orders of magnitude more radiation in a nuclear accident. http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

Ah, so it's one of those moments when there are contradicting studies and without getting a PhD on the subject one can't have a meaningful opinion. I just wish there was a good way of settling such situations.

Actually in this instance that is not the case. It is the case of misrepresenting the actual data and making a more sensational misleading headline.

See the editor's note in the original Scientific American article. It simply confirms the statements made by CEJournal.

Post reply on HN