Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

Post by bumby » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #37

bumby wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you've never personally experienced the US military... Kidding aside, while many service members do uphold their oath honorably, there's plenty of non-compliance and outright malfeasance without accountability. And to the grandparent, the military does run reactors outside of ships (but typically for research as far as I know)

> I see you've never personally experienced the US military I see you haven't bothered to actually look at the record. The U.S. Navy has decades of operating many nuclear reactors on ships and submarines with no incidents. > there's plenty of non-compliance and outright malfeasance without accountability Not in the U.S. Navy's nuclear program. Even what would be considered minor infractions in other parts of the mili…

Post by gowld » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #34

altcognito wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you still have disposal issues

The response to this is always "where are we disposing the fossil fuel waste?"

Post by ouid » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #39

yongjik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, when the alternative is fossil fuels (and it frequently is), you only have to understand that, even if your nuclear reactor goes kaboom, it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up. And please don't give me "we should all use less energy." Even if we should all use less energy, it's still better to generate this less energy from nuclear, as long as we're using fossil fue…

This isn't really the criticism that the OP is making. Coal may kill more people, but it doesn't irradiate the surrounding area for hundreds of years if something goes wrong. Personally, I agree that nuclear is probably not anti-fragile enough to be a widespread solution. Political instability is the norm, not the rarity, throughout history.

Post by Ididntdothis » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

gowld wrote: post #42

gamegoblin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person with an AK-47 and TNT can't render vast tracts of land uninhabitable for decades in the way that nuclear waste can. I am very pro-nuclear in the US (and the EU etc.), but I think the concern about nuclear in potentially unstable nations is absolutely valid.

The Chernobyl exclusion zone is 1000sqmi (32mi by 32mi). That's not so vast if it's in low populated area.

Post by yongjik » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 7:22 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #39

yongjik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, when the alternative is fossil fuels (and it frequently is), you only have to understand that, even if your nuclear reactor goes kaboom, it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up. And please don't give me "we should all use less energy." Even if we should all use less energy, it's still better to generate this less energy from nuclear, as long as we're using fossil fue…

This isn't really the criticism that the OP is making. Coal may kill more people, but it doesn't irradiate the surrounding area for hundreds of years if something goes wrong. Personally, I agree that nuclear is probably not anti-fragile enough to be a widespread solution. Political instability is the norm, not the rarity, throughout history.