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

Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

japantimes.co.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

#61

Post by ohyes »

trhway wrote: post #54
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…

> even if your nuclear reactor goes kaboom, it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up. increased cancer rates in Belarus (especially in Mogilev and Homel regions - the regions which took the brunt of Chernobyl and where the breast cancer rate for example is double) produce several thousand extra deaths per year. I wonder how a natural gas power plant - the present day alternativ…

Chernobyl is not the gold standard for comparison, it was a completely different design (far more dangerous, honestly) from the BWR/PWRs that were built everywhere else.

Re: Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

#62

Post by manfredo »

trhway wrote: post #54
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…

> even if your nuclear reactor goes kaboom, it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up. increased cancer rates in Belarus (especially in Mogilev and Homel regions - the regions which took the brunt of Chernobyl and where the breast cancer rate for example is double) produce several thousand extra deaths per year. I wonder how a natural gas power plant - the present day alternativ…

Fossil fuels produce an estimated > 4 million deaths per year [1]. This isn't even considering the hundreds of millions or more that are at risk of displacement due to climate change, and the conflict that will likely be associated with this displacement.

Also, can you substantiate your claim of several thousand extra deaths per year? I'm reading an estimated 5,000 additional cases of cancer (not all of them fatal) in all of Europe over the span of 20 years [2].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Cancer_asse...

Re: Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

#63

Post by zadkey »

zadkey wrote: post #59

Some of the wording in this article is confusing. "The Tokyo High Court on Tuesday ordered ¥1 million in additional damages be paid each to some 300 evacuees from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, down by two-thirds from the amount awarded by a lower court ruling." "Additional damages" vs "down by two-thirds" If it's down by two-thirds, it's not additional, its a reduction.

This only makes sense if there was an initial court ruling for a set amount of damages.

And then later another ruling for additional damages by a lower court, and then a higher court reduced the additional amount.

Re: Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

#64

Post by manfredo »

altcognito wrote: post #20
oconnor663 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question from a layman: What about "passively safe" reactor designs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety

you still have disposal issues

The energy density of uranium is such that the amount of waste generated is extremely small. The entirety of the nuclear waste generated by the US nuclear power industry could fit in a football field with a depth of 10 yards [1]. Put it in a concrete casket and bury it underground. Nuclear waste is a tiny sliver of the amount of industrial waste produced every year.

1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclea...

Re: Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

#66

Post by manfredo »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #50
WalterBright wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm anti-humans-running-nuclear-for-profit. Chernobyl wasn't run for profit.

Sure it was. Why would the soviets have build it if not for profit?

To produce electricity as part of a state-planned economy. It turns out governments are just as capable of cutting corners and making poor decisions like having a positive void coefficient, combined control/catalyst rods, and a lack of secondary containment.

Re: Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

#67

Post by roenxi »

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.

Given the choice; the vast majority of humans prefer to live in cities with population densities that are high. Given the choice & language not being a barrier, I'd prefer to live in Hong Kong at density 6,300 people/sq.km.

I'm not sure that irradiating the surrounding area for hundreds of years is as big a blocker as people believe; the earth is huge and we have a surplus of land in places people don't want to live. Most of the earths surface is already practically uninhabitable for humans and we are doing just fine.

Ironically, the places where it does matter (island nations like Japan) are almost forced in to nuclear because they have no space. They are probably doing more damage long term going back to fossil fuels than Fukushima did.

Re: Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

#68

Post by keiferski »

roenxi wrote: post #67
keiferski wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given the choice; the vast majority of humans prefer to live in cities with population densities that are high. Given the choice & language not being a barrier, I'd prefer to live in Hong Kong at density 6,300 people/sq.km. I'm not sure that irradiating the surrounding area for hundreds of years is as big a blocker as people believe; the earth is huge and we have a surplus of land in places people don't want to live.…

> Given the choice; the vast majority of humans prefer to live in cities with population densities that are high.

Moving to cities for economic opportunities is not a neutral choice in any sense. I’d question that most people actually prefer crowded cities.

Re: Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

#69

Post by gotstad »

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.

Actually coal plants are a huge emitter of radiation already. The radiation emissions of one coal plant might not compare with one full-blown nuclear plant disaster, but it certainly a noteworthy emission on average.

Re: Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

#70

Post by catalogia »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #53
pdonis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The Navy has the advantage that they don’t have the same cost pressure a civilian reactor has. I am pretty sure their MW/$ cost is much higher than would be acceptable for a nuclear power plant.

I suspect size requirements have relatively much more influence over the design and construction of naval reactors.
Post reply on HN