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

Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 128 posts

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#61

Post by caio1982 »

Boothroid wrote: post #43

A common response from defenders of nuclear when concerns are raised is to point to the impact of other energy sources, and say that nuclear is better in those terms. But I just cannot get away from the thought that whilst in aggregate those other forms of energy (fossil fuels, etc) might be provably worse than well managed nuclear within a particular analysis, humanity does not seem capable of this good management o…

Think about it as daily car crashes and pollution-related deaths versus an Airbus A380 full of people exploding live on prime time TV. I bet my ass people will keep talking about flight safety for weeks, non-stop, which is absolutely nonsensical. How many times you noticed people talking about the fossil fuels at a waiting line of a random place?

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#62

Post by ac29 »

alex_young wrote: post #55
marze wrote: post #6

I still don't see why they are spending years trying to make rad hard robots. A long steel tube with fiber optics to pipe in light, mirrors and optics to transmit an image down the tube would be infinitely easier. They'd need to burn a few holes, but none of the reactor vessels are intact so that wouldn't allow additional radioactive material to escape. I'm surprised the Japanese decision to dump the all the tritium…

> I'm surprised the Japanese decision to dump the all the tritium contaminated water into the ocean hasn't made more news. Why? It seems relatively safe, and there doesn't seem to be much else to do with it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...

Quick summary:

They are putting a little over 50mL of a weakly radioactive, fast decaying isotope into the ocean. It will be undetectable within a few years.

Natural tritium production (from cosmic rays) occurs at at a rate 3 orders of magnitude higher [0] than is occurring at Fukushima [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Cosmic_rays

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Fukushima_Daiichi

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#63

Post by Pica_soO »

jdubs wrote: post #16
marze wrote: post #6

I still don't see why they are spending years trying to make rad hard robots. A long steel tube with fiber optics to pipe in light, mirrors and optics to transmit an image down the tube would be infinitely easier. They'd need to burn a few holes, but none of the reactor vessels are intact so that wouldn't allow additional radioactive material to escape. I'm surprised the Japanese decision to dump the all the tritium…

Complex problems often require complex solutions. I imagine that your suggestion works for some situations but not all. The cynical side of me thinks that one of the few benefits of the disaster will be new technology and robots that will help prevent future disasters. I imagine there's a very high priced market for these kinds of hardened robots.

Radiation safe robots could be a plus in space one day.

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#64

Post by mikeash »

Boothroid wrote: post #43

A common response from defenders of nuclear when concerns are raised is to point to the impact of other energy sources, and say that nuclear is better in those terms. But I just cannot get away from the thought that whilst in aggregate those other forms of energy (fossil fuels, etc) might be provably worse than well managed nuclear within a particular analysis, humanity does not seem capable of this good management o…

The only reason fossil fuels don't have the same potential to go spectacularly bad is because humans don't consider enormous damage to be "spectacular" when it's spread out.

Consider: coal alone kills about a million people a year. If those were all concentrated in a small area, we'd call it the greatest disaster the world has ever seen. But it's spread out over the whole world, so we just shrug our shoulders and say, eh, at least it doesn't go badly wrong like nuclear does.

Put another way: coal kills more people each year than nuclear ever has over its entire history, including the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan.

And yes, you do get harmful particles on the coast of the US from activity in Asia:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094/...

People are suffering and dying from fossil fuel pollution emitted half a world away. Pollution from Fukushima can only be detected on the US west coast with the most sensitive instruments, and has no health effects.

Nuclear isn't perfect, but if you want to compare it with fossil fuels, you need to look at the constant deadly impact of fossil fuels, not merely look at big splashy accidents.

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#65

Post by Pica_soO »

nolok wrote: post #35
frivoal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, the animals aren't radiation hardened and do die of cancer, but not fast enough to get in the way of breeding and multiplying. Or, in other words, while radioactive waste is unhealthy, it fatality rate is lower than having humans around.

Or put another way : evolution and natural selection aren't about living a long time, they're about reproducing.

Or put another way: Nothing is that poisonous that nature cant swallow it first and bring it underground, thus making nature the ultimate hipster.

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#66

Post by mikeash »

agumonkey wrote: post #25
jdubs wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complex problems often require complex solutions. I imagine that your suggestion works for some situations but not all. The cynical side of me thinks that one of the few benefits of the disaster will be new technology and robots that will help prevent future disasters. I imagine there's a very high priced market for these kinds of hardened robots.

There was a documentary about Tchernobyl surrounding forest few years ago. Most of the vegetation grew back, healthily for my naked eye. Anyways, the most surprising part is that mammals were back too; even though the radiation level was higher than average. I concluded that only a few generation of darwinian selection is needed to breed radiation hardened humans.

Keep in mind that the Chernobyl exclusion zone has not been fully enforced, and people do live there:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-04-26/30-years-after-cherno...

It's probably unwise, but it's not super deadly.

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#67

Post by colordrops »

mikeash wrote: post #64
Boothroid wrote: post #43

A common response from defenders of nuclear when concerns are raised is to point to the impact of other energy sources, and say that nuclear is better in those terms. But I just cannot get away from the thought that whilst in aggregate those other forms of energy (fossil fuels, etc) might be provably worse than well managed nuclear within a particular analysis, humanity does not seem capable of this good management o…

The only reason fossil fuels don't have the same potential to go spectacularly bad is because humans don't consider enormous damage to be "spectacular" when it's spread out. Consider: coal alone kills about a million people a year. If those were all concentrated in a small area, we'd call it the greatest disaster the world has ever seen. But it's spread out over the whole world, so we just shrug our shoulders and say…

When a coal plant fails, it just turns off. When a nuclear plant fails, you've got to get the best people on Earth and tens of billions to contain (not fix) the problem, in one of the most advanced nations on Earth. It made a huge mess that spread to Europe when Chernobyl failed. If nuclear is wide spread, what happens when human incompetence causes a plant failure in a place like Nigeria or Venezuela?

Edit: also, I frequently hear this argument about coal, but it's not a choice between nuclear and coal. Nuclear advocates promote investment in nuclear, but if we were to invest huge amounts into new energy infrastructure, we might as well invest in renewables, rather than another dirty hard to manage source.

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#68

Post by mikeash »

colordrops wrote: post #67
mikeash wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason fossil fuels don't have the same potential to go spectacularly bad is because humans don't consider enormous damage to be "spectacular" when it's spread out. Consider: coal alone kills about a million people a year. If those were all concentrated in a small area, we'd call it the greatest disaster the world has ever seen. But it's spread out over the whole world, so we just shrug our shoulders and say…

When a coal plant fails, it just turns off. When a nuclear plant fails, you've got to get the best people on Earth and tens of billions to contain (not fix) the problem, in one of the most advanced nations on Earth. It made a huge mess that spread to Europe when Chernobyl failed. If nuclear is wide spread, what happens when human incompetence causes a plant failure in a place like Nigeria or Venezuela? Edit: also, I…

Nuclear plants sometimes kill people when they fail. Coal plants kill vast numbers of people when they work. And the latter number is far, far larger than the former. Why is that an indictment of nuclear?

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#69

Post by chiph »

eternauta3k wrote: post #42
QAPereo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A long steel tube with fiber optics to pipe in light, mirrors and optics to transmit an image down the tube would be infinitely easier. That seems likely to degrade the fiber, or the signal and I'm having trouble thinking of any tested fiber in the range of a molten reactor core. The flux is really crazy near that thing, and not just photons, but relativistic electrons and some very angry helium nuclei.

> That seems likely to degrade the fiber, or the signal Could you go into more detail?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_on_optical_f...

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#70

Post by oliv__ »

mikeash wrote: post #64
Boothroid wrote: post #43

A common response from defenders of nuclear when concerns are raised is to point to the impact of other energy sources, and say that nuclear is better in those terms. But I just cannot get away from the thought that whilst in aggregate those other forms of energy (fossil fuels, etc) might be provably worse than well managed nuclear within a particular analysis, humanity does not seem capable of this good management o…

The only reason fossil fuels don't have the same potential to go spectacularly bad is because humans don't consider enormous damage to be "spectacular" when it's spread out. Consider: coal alone kills about a million people a year. If those were all concentrated in a small area, we'd call it the greatest disaster the world has ever seen. But it's spread out over the whole world, so we just shrug our shoulders and say…

I don't think that's a fair comparison.

To me (and I suspect to many others), the huge difference lies in the indelibility of the damages of nuclear power.

Sure, coal might kill a million people a year, but the remnants of a nuclear incident will remain for thousands of years and affect hundreds of generations after that, in ways we don't even fully understand yet.

Post reply on HN