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

#81

Post by GHFigs » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:16 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #21

GHFigs wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people are you talking about?

> What people are you talking about? These: http://streaming.tepco.co.jp/tepco_people/index-j.html From here: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_ex...

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be concluding from this. The first link is just a list of profiles/interviews with various employees of the company (the newest being over a year old). Strictly speaking, it's possible that some of them are the same people working at the site at present, but this is a company with (according to the site) over 15,000 employees. That nobody on Reddit even bothered to run the site through an automatic translator is telling.

But more to the point, there is no indication of "people sacrificing their lives" unless you count the extremely hyperbolic assumption that everybody working at the site is automatically doomed.

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

#82

Post by whyenot » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:21 PM UTC

knieveltech wrote: post #74

billybob wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If his webserver goes down he doesn't need to evacuate everyone in a 30km radius.

Apples and oranges.

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

#83

Post by chokma » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:24 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #52

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…

And for years strawberries, mushrooms and deer were off limits on the food table. Sure maybe that pales compared to actual deaths, but it didn't help to endear nuclear power to my heart. Of course other power sources pollute the environment, too, but they can be improved as well, for example by installing better filters.

> And for years strawberries, mushrooms and deer were off limits on the food table.

There are still areas in Germany were wild pigs have to be tested for radioactivity, as some of them are too fond of radioactive mushrooms.

(lang=de: http://www.zeit.de/2010/46/U-Strahlende-Wildschweine?page=al... )

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

#84

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:24 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #54

gritzko wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Speaking of jumping to conclusions: Germany just started to shut down 7 nuclear power plants because of Fukushima... 100% pure green hysteria. ~10.000 died because of the tsunami. Who died because of Fukushima? None so far.

Well there is cheap living space available around Fukushima right now. Would you care to move there?

[deleted]

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

#85

Post by nakkiel » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:25 PM UTC

kmfrk wrote: post #60

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…

>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. NYT, Guardian, Spiegel, Mother Jones, The Atlantic (every online publication there is), every news TV channel (except Al Jazeera). Greenpeace are all over the place with their campaigning. The hys…

I deeply agree with that. At the same time, I believe it's time to forcefully put other energy sources to use, make them work and more generally give them their chance. I'd go as far as saying this would draw a lot of economical activity world-wide and get us out of the economical crisis for good.

In a way, I see this event as an opportunity. It's just been demonstrated that Nuclear Energy is safe enough (at least, that's how I see things) but I still believe we deserve greener energies.

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

#86

Post by whyenot » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:26 PM UTC

VBprogrammer wrote: post #69

schintan wrote: post #61

The worst case scenario of a nuclear reactor going wrong is much worse than any other alternative, however slim the chances of that happening may be. This fact is enough to be concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors.

Cars are the probabilistically one of the most risky form of transport. I doubt that you are concerned about that fact when you get in to one.

Risk of death isn't the only issue. In a car accident you don't have to worry about cesium-137 rendering the area near the accident unusable by humans for 100 years or more.

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

#87

Post by moe » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:29 PM UTC

dublinclontarf wrote: post #77

moe wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First it WAS a big deal. What happened is nothing to sniff at.

Sorry, but I think you're contradicting yourself here. First you say 4050 people affected and totaling "only" 90 deaths is not a big deal (which I would agree with) - and now you say the opposite?

If it was commonly agreed that the number of casualties was that low then I really don't get why even the pro-nuclear parties refer to it as the dramatic event that is to be avoided at all costs. Your average earthquake affects and kills more people than that...

Second, the problem is that the anti-nuclear movement [...] in an attempt to use irrational fear to bolster resistance against nuclear

I keep hearing that, but I'm really wondering what are the motivations here?

Yes, there are some environmental nut-jobs who will argue for the sake of it, but those are usually easy to spot. However, on top of that there is also a non-negligible number of more or less credible scientists and first-hand witnesses (doctors, nurses) who question the figure of ~4000 affected. When I see an interview with a nurse on TV who reports about entire villages in the area dying out because they can't make children without birth-defects, then I can't help but ask: Why should she make this up? Who is paying her to tell us lies?

And then, on the other side of the spectrum, we have a multi-billion dollar industry and entire countries depending on the perception that nuke plants are "safe enough".

I'm not claiming to have the definite answer. I just don't understand where people like you are taking their confidence from.

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

#88

Post by rglullis » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:31 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #54

gritzko wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Speaking of jumping to conclusions: Germany just started to shut down 7 nuclear power plants because of Fukushima... 100% pure green hysteria. ~10.000 died because of the tsunami. Who died because of Fukushima? None so far.

Well there is cheap living space available around Fukushima right now. Would you care to move there?

The place has been just hit by an 8.9 earthquake and a tsunami. If I had to list reasons why not to go over there, my concern over likelihood of natural disasters is much higher than concern of nuclear accidents.

All else being equal, I wouldn't mind moving close to a nuclear plant. The thing is, power plants (in general) are built in less hospitable places. So it's never "equal" to begin with.

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

#89

Post by dmm » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:37 PM UTC

whyenot wrote: post #86

VBprogrammer wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are the probabilistically one of the most risky form of transport. I doubt that you are concerned about that fact when you get in to one.

Risk of death isn't the only issue. In a car accident you don't have to worry about cesium-137 rendering the area near the accident unusable by humans for 100 years or more.

Driving a car doesn't produce large, economical quantities of electricity either, it's about managed risk and cost-benefit considerations.

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

#90

Post by natnat » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:39 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…

Before saying that nuclear power isn't safe enough, consider where we get most of our electricity from today: coal. Coal may have been around a long time, but it is far more dangerous than nuclear power. The fly ash produced by coal burning often contains substantial concentrations of uranium (not too bad) and radium (very bad), as well as all sorts of other toxic but non-radioactive chemicals like lead.

Although there is a lot more net radiation coming from all the fly ash we produce that there is from our nuclear reactors, the EPA doesn't bother to treat fly ash as hazardous waste, so most people don't think it's scary. This means we already have a bunch of radioactive waste dumped into our landfills without much oversight at all.

While nuclear waste is very dangerous, there isn't a whole lot of it, and it's quite safe when it's stored properly in a radiation-sealed container. It doesn't end up in our landfills, or our air supply. It's a point source of pollution, which makes it much easier to take care of, and it is much nicer to leave future generations some concentrated, shielded radioactive waste in remote areas than to leave them tons of low-level waste in their water supply.

I'm an advocate of solar energy, and nuclear power is a hell of a lot less safe than I'd like. But as long as we're burning coal, we should be worried more about the risks of that, even though they may be less scary-seeming, because they truly are more dangerous.