Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

Post by hartror » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 11:49 AM UTC

dublinclontarf wrote: post #29

antirez wrote: post #5

Enough articles "everything is fine" for my tastes circulating onto Hacker News, while instead the facts created more and more concerns. I think it's better to just wait, and hope, instead of blabling about things that even the top experts of the world are having an hard time to figure. There will be a time, in a few weeks, and hopefully after a disaster was avoided, to speculate about the real security of nuke power…

Sadly within a few weeks, armies of anti-nuclear campainers, writers, and politicians will have jumped on this and pumped it so through the roof that, even if everything in this article is correct most people won't listen. Look at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island (study after study found no major exposure by anyone). The hysteria over this is caused by the anti-nuclear people and groups trying to use this as a case aga…

Post by bluedanieru » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 11:50 AM UTC

dublinclontarf wrote: post #29

antirez wrote: post #5

Enough articles "everything is fine" for my tastes circulating onto Hacker News, while instead the facts created more and more concerns. I think it's better to just wait, and hope, instead of blabling about things that even the top experts of the world are having an hard time to figure. There will be a time, in a few weeks, and hopefully after a disaster was avoided, to speculate about the real security of nuke power…

Sadly within a few weeks, armies of anti-nuclear campainers, writers, and politicians will have jumped on this and pumped it so through the roof that, even if everything in this article is correct most people won't listen. Look at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island (study after study found no major exposure by anyone). The hysteria over this is caused by the anti-nuclear people and groups trying to use this as a case aga…

Post by bluedanieru » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 11:51 AM UTC

zalew wrote: post #30

_delirium wrote: post #2

At Chernobyl, this actually happened inside the containment vessel and the resulting explosion ruptured the vessel, leading to a serious release of core radioactives – though this has had basically zero effect on the world in general nor even much impact on the area around Chernobyl. Even just as a matter of rhetoric and persuasion, I think trying to argue that Chernobyl wasn't all that bad isn't the route you want t…

It wasn't that bad at all. In every discussion about Charnobyl I link this (translation from Polish) http://goo.gl/Djbag > So what Chernobyl has taught us? > That nuclear energy is the safest source of energy currently available. The Chernobyl disaster was the worst we can imagine a nuclear power plant. In addition, Chernobyl defied every rule of safety. This property was one big scandal. But that's not all. Followin…

Post by jbri » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 11:54 AM UTC

paganel wrote: post #35

paganel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I guess people are stupid, aren't they, because of all the friends I know none of them would prefer having his/her house close to a nuclear plant, compared to having it close to a coal plant. And what do you know? These stupid people (including me) do have the power to vote, and I sure as hell would vote for nuclear power plants to be closed down were I given the chance to do so.

In responding to jbri's comment bellow, as the "Reply" link doesn't show up for me on that one: > Are you suggesting that because ignorant people think something is unsafe, that means that it actually is unsafe? Yeah, this is what I'm saying, but isn't this what web 2.0 people were calling "wisdom of the crowds"? I guess back then it sounded cool, now it's just "return to technocracy" once more.

Post by bluedanieru » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 11:58 AM UTC

bluedanieru wrote: post #39

potatolicious wrote: post #7

... I'm not one of the "OMFG LOOK AT THE NUCLEAR ANGEL OF DEATH" people, but can we wait for this crisis to reach some resolution before we make loud proclamations either way? The main information that concerns me right now is that there appears to be a consistent radiation leak of 400 mSv/h at the plant. While not Chernobyl by any measure, this is quite a bit of radiation, considering one's yearly dose limit is 1 mS…

The 400 mSv figure was a spike measured at one of the reactors, not ambient radiation in populated areas. In Shinjuku in Tokyo for example they measured 0.809µSv (note the µ) between 10 and 11 this morning, although the average for that period was about half that. If there are no further blasts or fires I think things will be fine, but I don't know how much more damage the facility can take. Some of my friends and co…