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

#111

Post by beefman » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 5:53 PM UTC

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…

People deserve to know if anything is currently wrong, throughout this event. If a public health problem does obtain, that doesn't make people who suggested it obtained before it did correct!

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

#112

Post by jshen » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 6:10 PM UTC

dublinclontarf wrote: post #101

jshen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326129

What SOME reports are saying. You are cherry picking the lowest counts.

"But other reputable scientists researching the most radiation-contaminated areas of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are not convinced. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus.

Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far."

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

#113

Post by joegester » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 6:10 PM UTC

bahadden wrote: post #17

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…

"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?

The 1 mSv/Y guideline is based on a hypothesis that extrapolating downward from higher dosages that have well understood health effects we can infer the effects of lower dosages. They call this the Linear no-threshold model. It was chosen because it's the most conservative, safest option.

Scientists suspect that it's wrong though. We have DNA repair mechanisms that may catch many errors.

The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model) is pretty good.

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

#114

Post by potatolicious » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 6:17 PM 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…

Yes, the 400 mSv figure is at the plant - the front gates to be specific IIRC. If 400 mSv/h is measured in a populated area this would be a complete and absolute disaster - within a few hours people would be falling sick from radiation sickness, some will die in the short term from it, and you're now dealing with an incredibly large long tail of cancers in the future.

Even just measuring that level at the plant is alarming, though it currently poses little threat to the public. It does raise the question of whether or not they have it under as much control as we'd hope.

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

#115

Post by knieveltech » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 6:19 PM UTC

whyenot wrote: post #82

knieveltech wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We're in violent agreement here.

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

#116

Post by beefman » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 6:20 PM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #107

bluedanieru wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pers…

Coal mining killed more than 6,000 people in China in 2004 (a typical year). Early deaths due to air pollution from coal combustion are measured in the tens of thousands per year in the United States. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe0809178

Chernobyl was the worst possible nuclear accident. It caused between 50 and 5000 early deaths. As a major industrial accident, it was only average. It pales in comparison to the 1984 Bhopal disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

It took a long time to convince myself of this, but it really is quite obvious: because of the energy density difference of ~ 1,000,000 between fission and everything else, just about everything you'd care to measure about fission is going to be at least an order of magnitude better. That's because the amount of energy we're interested in is roughly constant, so the upper bound on destruction is roughly the same, but the material flows for fission are a million times smaller.

Actually, appropriate use of fission should increase the demand for energy somewhat, and this would be a very good thing.

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

#117

Post by potatolicious » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 6:20 PM UTC

dublinclontarf wrote: post #37

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…

>... 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? Well you could see this as a calm article to balance those with cries of the nuclear angel because lets face it, they sure are making something of this.

It's not a calm article though - it's as bad as the ones proclaiming the death of nuclear and the upcoming atomic apocalypse... just in the complete opposite extreme.

Where one side is "fire! brimstone! death!" this side is "lalalalala NO PROBLEMS KEEP CALM CARRY ON". Both are unnecessary, unproductive, and dogmatic.

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

#118

Post by OpieCunningham » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 6:25 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.

But you are right about Three-Mile Island.

He's not right about TMI, either. The results of TMI are debated to this day with some studies claiming minimal or no adverse health affects and some studies claiming significant adverse health affects.

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

#119

Post by john61 » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 6:33 PM UTC

khafra wrote: post #53

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.

The hysterics don't turn green until they're actually exposed to toxic waste. I think this is plain old hysteria; many environmentalists are all about nuclear power because the alternatives are coal, oil, or hunter/gatherer at 1/1000th the world's current population.

The alternative is to save energy. There is still much to gain with advanced technology. For example we drive all day with vehicels that have an overall efficiency factor of 3%. Huge waste is going on. It's a shame.

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

#120

Post by michaeldhopkins » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 6:34 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #75

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.

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.

More like 4-12 hours per day depending on the age of the farm (startups take work), the quality of the land and the crop season. More hours during planting and harvesting, and almost nothing during the winter. The number didn't really depend on technology past a certain point of desperation (passed well before recorded history.) For example, the gothic cultures farmed before they borrowed the plow from the Romans. Post-plow they became richer instead of cutting back hours. No different than today.

There were many provisions for crop failure, including crop variety, raising animals, preserving food, fishing and trading with luckier regions. Like today.

Pro-agrarian looking to set the record straight. I'm also in favor of nuclear power!