Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by vegai » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:02 PM UTC

bluedanieru wrote: post #34

dublinclontarf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just a quick point of order: study after study on Chernobyl found major exposure by just about everyone . It was serious business. This is where, without any containment vessel at all, the fuel caught fire and the radioactive ash spread all over the place. But you are right about Three-Mile Island.

Then again, I've understood that the worst casualty of Chernobyl was the roughly 200 000 babies who were needlessly aborted because of fears of radiation poisoning.

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

#72

Post by sterling » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:12 PM UTC

dublinclontarf wrote: post #56

bluedanieru wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a quick point of order: study after study on Chernobyl found major exposure by just about everyone . It was serious business. This is where, without any containment vessel at all, the fuel caught fire and the radioactive ash spread all over the place. But you are right about Three-Mile Island.

Yes there was exposure, certainly those 4000 children recieved high enough levels. However this is a far cry of hundreds of thousands of dangerous exposures, massive increases of cancer rates and birth defects that are still happening that most people think of. I myself thought just that until recently after investigating it.

I was studying in Russia when Chernobyl occurred, and I dated a woman from northern Ukraine who was a teenager at the time of the accident. I saw the results of the accident firsthand - basically everyone under the age of 10 was affected - hair loss, skin rashes and nausea in the immediate years after, cancer and early death later. But even so it isn't fair to judge the safety of nuclear power by Chernobyl. Chernobyl happened because the Soviet system had become incredibly incompetent, and technical decisions were being made by thugs.

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

#73

Post by billybob » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:35 PM UTC

hartror wrote: post #32

dublinclontarf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I consider myself a leftie greenie politically, and I am pro nuclear (with some small reservations). It pisses me off no end to see the same people campaigning for action on climate change campaigning against the one proven at scale technology that can help us out of the climate change mess.

I'm not an environmentalist, but as a technology person, I'm extremely skeptical of claims that nuclear power can be safe, however well-designed the reactors are today. It's hard enough to tell whether my web server will be able to handle next year's traffic.

Nuclear power produces waste that is dangerous for thousands of years. How can anyone say, with a straight face, that they have a plan for that? All of us will be dead and every government in the world will have changed. Our current languages won't be spoken anymore. The location of the waste deposits will likely be forgotten. There is absolutely no way to predict what will happen to the waste, and it seems awfully selfish to foist that kind of problem on people in the future to solve our very short-term energy needs.

If there is a form of nuclear power that completely expends its fuel to the point where its demonstrably not dangerous TODAY, or if we can launch the waste into the sun, I'm all for it. But lets not pretend we can control the damage from things that will persist for thousands of years after we're dead.

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

#74

Post by knieveltech » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:43 PM UTC

billybob wrote: post #73

hartror wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself a leftie greenie politically, and I am pro nuclear (with some small reservations). It pisses me off no end to see the same people campaigning for action on climate change campaigning against the one proven at scale technology that can help us out of the climate change mess.

I'm not an environmentalist, but as a technology person, I'm extremely skeptical of claims that nuclear power can be safe, however well-designed the reactors are today. It's hard enough to tell whether my web server will be able to handle next year's traffic. Nuclear power produces waste that is dangerous for thousands of years. How can anyone say, with a straight face, that they have a plan for that? All of us will…

The thing is, it doesn't take hordes of engineers nearly a decade to design your web server.

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

#75

Post by tomjen3 » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:46 PM UTC

hartror wrote: post #32

dublinclontarf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I consider myself a leftie greenie politically, and I am pro nuclear (with some small reservations). It pisses me off no end to see the same people campaigning for action on climate change campaigning against the one proven at scale technology that can help us out of the climate change mess.

The reason they campaign against that is that they don't want us to continue running around in this stage of sin (technological development), but to return to grace (in this case back to working 18 hour days with a single failed harvest killing us).

Much of the hardcore environmental movement is using it as a substitute for religion, except in an even more insane way.

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

#76

Post by amalcon » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:53 PM UTC

billybob wrote: post #73

hartror wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself a leftie greenie politically, and I am pro nuclear (with some small reservations). It pisses me off no end to see the same people campaigning for action on climate change campaigning against the one proven at scale technology that can help us out of the climate change mess.

I'm not an environmentalist, but as a technology person, I'm extremely skeptical of claims that nuclear power can be safe, however well-designed the reactors are today. It's hard enough to tell whether my web server will be able to handle next year's traffic. Nuclear power produces waste that is dangerous for thousands of years. How can anyone say, with a straight face, that they have a plan for that? All of us will…

That sets the bar too high, though. It doesn't need to be perfectly safe. It need only be safer than the alternatives.

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

#77

Post by dublinclontarf » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 2:56 PM UTC

moe wrote: post #68

dublinclontarf wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl wasn't as bad as has been made out to be. In total around 50 deaths are directly attributable to radiation exposure(firemen and resue workers). 4'000 children contracted thyroid cancer as a result but with nearly a 99% recovery rate. In terms of cancers or birth defects there have been no increases over the average in effected areas. Seriously, study after study by various international organisations have c…

In total around 50 deaths are directly attributable to radiation I wonder how you can claim that when, depending on who you ask, the figure varies between 50, 50000 and "hundreds of thousands". The figures you cite are from IAEA, which arguably is quite a biased source. Let's also not forget that it's very difficult to track and correlate the health of >600k people over 20+ years - even if you try to do it in best ho…

>I haven't read it, it may be fear mongering material. But then again, if really only 4050 people were affected, why is everyone making such a big deal about it?

They're making a big deal for 2 reasons. First it WAS a big deal. What happened is nothing to sniff at. So making a big deal over Chernobyl is no problem.

Second, the problem is that the anti-nuclear movement is trying to make people believe that it was much worse than it was, in an attempt to use irrational fear to bolster resistance against nuclear.

These are people who have no problem with lies, to them the end justifies the means, they will do anything they can, including breaking laws to stop nuclear power. I've seen this in Ireland not only with nuclear but with the building of a gas plant, a small group of radicals broke into the facility numerous times doing whatever damage they could. And this was just for gas.

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

#78

Post by krschultz » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:05 PM UTC

jeffreyrusso wrote: post #50

krschultz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you say they "clearly were not"? I think the opposite is quite clear - the main components survived the earthquake just fine. The problem right now is the lack of power. The pumps are run on electric power, and as soon as the earthquake came the power plant itself shut down. So now you need external power to run the pumps. The power infrastructure failed and no other power plants could power these pumps. So t…

I suppose we can all have differing opinions on what an acceptable level of risk is, but leaking radiation, fuel storage ponds on fire, and a situation volatile enough to warrant a 30km exclusion zone says to me that the plant clearly was not designed to handle this kind of situation. If the problem is the lack of power, then so be it - even more of a preventable problem that wasn't properly assured against. I'm hope…

The level of leaking radiation here is nothing. How does it compare to a dental x-ray? Should we ban dental x-rays?

The exclusion zone is a precaution. You could be running around nude in it right now and you wouldn't get cancer.

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

#79

Post by jshen » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:09 PM UTC

dublinclontarf wrote: post #56

bluedanieru wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a quick point of order: study after study on Chernobyl found major exposure by just about everyone . It was serious business. This is where, without any containment vessel at all, the fuel caught fire and the radioactive ash spread all over the place. But you are right about Three-Mile Island.

Yes there was exposure, certainly those 4000 children recieved high enough levels. However this is a far cry of hundreds of thousands of dangerous exposures, massive increases of cancer rates and birth defects that are still happening that most people think of. I myself thought just that until recently after investigating it.

Are you saying that only 4000 people were affected?

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

#80

Post by InclinedPlane » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:12 PM UTC

The central problem is still ignorance, unfamiliarity, and fear. People are more afraid of death and injury related to radiation exposure because it's not something they're familiar with. That causes people to incorrectly weigh the risks and tradeoffs involved.