Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the reports.
You didn't answer the question, nor did you link any reports. Are you saying that only 4000 people were affected?
I'm saying what the reports are saying.
Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
101–110 of 157 posts
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#102Earlier 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 agree that balance is good, and that in truth, nuclear power is very safe, but consider what happens if there is a major release of radioactivity. How is this article going to look then? I think you'd agree it would weaken the credibility of pro-nuclear campaigners. Lying for the sake of truth is a bad idea. As it stands, a meltdown is a definite possibility (not necessarily probable.) Perhaps a better stratergy wo…
>Lying for the sake of truth is a bad idea.
This isn't lying, it's accurate according to the information that we have acquired over the last 60 years on the use of nuclear technology. Should these predictions turn out to be incorrect then the information we have needs to be updated. I'm hoping it turns out well, there are of course no guarantees but the chances of things going even further south are low.
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much every other energy source is more dangerous than nuclear. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener...
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.
So, you would prefer living near tens of square miles of moon-like wasteland created by ever-growing surface coal mines, eventually even having your house demolished to allow the mine grow more again, in order to feed that power plant?
In a country like this, with smoking power plants nearby: http://krajina.venku.cz/exkur2a/ex2a-01a.htm
Or rather just tolerate this: http://www.vyletnik.cz/images/profily/users/1969/jaderna-ele...
(Please note that these images are very real, and we're going to need to extend either the mines or build some new nuclear plants, at least locally, in the Czech republic.)
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#104Earlier 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.
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.
I'm not advocating a 'return to grace', but you picked a rather selective definition of 'grace'. Looking further back (or elsewhere) than subsistence agriculture, hunter-gathering is potentially a pretty leisurely lifestyle: the 'original affluent society' (http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html).
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#105I think it might be time for those who don't have a clue to stop talking about this. People are and will be diing because of what is happening now. Calling this "ok" and "safe" is borderline obscene. Plus, as told in other comments, this article dates back to yesterday and recent news are less and less reassuring (e.g. the containment vessel is now broken in one reactor). Thank you.
'People' have not died because of the reactor problems - there has been one reported fatality due to a crane accident. And do you have a source for "the containment vessel is now broken in one reactor"? A site linked elsewhere in these comments ( http://mitnse.com/ ) reports that the suppression chamber in one reactor may be damaged but that's not 'the containment vessel'. I agree with your desire to stop the FUD, bu…
There was a reported death in another prefecture, when someone taped all their windows shut after hearing about it on the news. He forgot to turn off the gas and suffocated.
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#106Enough 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…
Yes, turn on CNN or MSNBC right now, and all you will hear about is an imminent meltdown, and what it means for US nuclear power. This article is a drop of sanity in a sea of stupidity.
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It killed 31 people more or less immediately . Thousands of cancers are linked to it.
How many cancers would you wager could be linked to emissions from a coal plant of comparable energy output? What if there was a tsunami and it blew up?
What if we took the average number of fatalities per gigawatt-hour generated for coal and compared that to the worst-case ever scenario for nuclear, Chernobyl? Does anyone have these figures? I think we could all really use them to put this whole thing in proper perspective.
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#108Earlier 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…
"If people don't fight the campaign to stop nuclear energy, the factoids are going to dominate the discourse in many years to come."
I don't think it's fair to characterize the opposition's arguments so flippantly (as "factoids"). I'm far from an opponent of nuclear energy, but there are a lot of damned good reasons to be contemplative about a system where one bad day can injure thousands of people, and simultaneously make thousands of square miles of land unfit for human habitation for hundreds of years.
We (humans) seem to have a remarkably bad ability to correctly estimate the likelihood of "improbable" events. When that unfortunate trait crosses with the potential for out-sized, long-term impacts on the environment, it's right to be wary. It isn't totally irrational to argue that an extremely conservative position on risk is appropriate in that situation.
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
"considering one's yearly dose limit is 1 mSv total." In Ramsar, Iran the background radition is around 200 mSv/Y (compared to a worldwide average of 2.4 mSv/Y) and _according to wikipedia_ this "high level of radiation does not seem to have caused ill effects on the residents of the area". Call me confused. Is the 1 mSv/Y total one of those made-up safety guidelines?
1 mSv is estimated to increase your odds of serious medical complications by 1/1,000,000. Not a significant amount, but one's regularly allowable dose should not be expected to cause health problems in the first place. Also, these limits are very conservatively set for various reasons - most of which I agree with (used to work in a nuclear facility). So no, if you got blasted with 10 mSv all at once you shouldn't exp…
A typical CT scan will expose you to 10-15mSv. A dose of 100mSv infers a 1% lifetime cancer risk. The effects of doses as small as 1mSv are not known and are inferred by models.
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're saying that mob rule has the power to irrationally stop nuclear power production, I agree with you. If you're saying this is the way things ought to be, I'm not sure if I agree but I think you have a valid point about the democratic form of government. If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead w…
Yeap, you're right on the first 2 points I was trying to make. Reguarding this > If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead wrong. I didn't say that people's reaction to nuclear power changes it into something "dangerous", I was only saying that if people decide not to fund nuclear development anymore (say…
Actually, it's a plutocracy. People don't listen to technocrats unless they have a good idea for generating wealth/power.
The reason you don't leave any serious decisions in the hands of the masses is because it leads to instability, which is the worst thing that can happen to a government.
In every form of government, you have a minority bloc which makes the most important decisions unilaterally. The remaining decisions are, depending on the visible form of government, passed on to various degrees to the public so that they may feel they are participating in the running of their country's affairs.
There is, of course, some give-and-take when a special interest group gains too much power, but those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.