Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 157 posts

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

#121

Post by VladRussian »

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?

200 mSv/Y : so that is 20 R/Y in the old language? That can not cause any ill effects only in the very specific countries, like Soviet Union, North Korea, Iran, Libya... I guess people there are just more radiation resistant.

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

#122

Post by moe »

dublinclontarf wrote: post #96
moe wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I'm not claiming to have the definite answer. I just don't understand where people like you are taking their confidence from. I get my confidence from my understanding of nuclear energy. I'm not a nuclear scientist, but if your even remotely technically inclined(or just make an effort to understand) the basics are not hard to learn. Most people think it's beyond their ability to understand how nuclear works so they…

I'm not a nuclear scientist, but if your even remotely technically inclined(or just make an effort to understand) the basics are not hard to learn.

Oh, I think I do have a basic grasp.

However, I'm not sure how your two stories relate to either Chernobyl or a potential meltdown in Japan at all.

Are you trying to suggest that nuke plants are inherently harmless, because even fires can burn in them for 2 days without anything bad happening?

I guess it boils down to that I have a different understanding of the risks of nuclear plants - physics aside. People like you (sorry for generalizing) repeatedly claim that a meltdown is a normal and planned failure-mode. The core melts, the containment catches the radioactive blob, it cools down, all is well.

This sounds nice in theory. My problem is that it doesn't jibe at all with what we hear from japan these days. It doesn't sound like they're following a boring disaster-plan. It sounds more like they're pretty much in panic-mode. But perhaps this is just the media-spin, we'll know in a few weeks...

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

#123

Post by VladRussian »

gritzko wrote: post #44
BvS wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched a documentary about Chernobyl yesterday ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o ) an although it's obviously a little sensationalist/emotional I have a really hard time having any respect for people claiming it didn't have that much impact. Fukushima is very different but I agree with others that we should wait at least a couple of weeks till we make any conclusions Speaking of jumping to conclusions:…

> 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.

what do you want Germany to do about tsunami?

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

#124

Post by gsmaverick »

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…

Is dumping millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico an acceptable level of risk for you? I don't see you saying we should stop drilling for oil.

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

#126

Post by pella »

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

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22037/full

"Models predict that by 2065 about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400–72,000) cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000–59,000) cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident, whereas several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes. Although these estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the Chernobyl accident. It is unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates—other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions—that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident."

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

#127

Post by marshray »

knuton wrote: post #22
_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…

The National Geographic article, the author links to, states that The effects of the Chernobyl catastrophe are still being felt today—whole towns lie abandoned, and cancer rates in people living close to the affected areas are abnormally high then goes on to say that But it turns out that the radioactive cloud may have a silver lining. Recent studies suggest that the 19-mile (30-kilometer) "exclusion zone" set up aro…

The author must be one of those people who believes the Earth is better off without people in general.

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

#128

Post by marshray »

sunchild wrote: post #106
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…

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.

Correction: It's not an imminent meltdown.

It's an ongoing meltdown.

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

#129

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Robin_Message wrote: post #100
nakkiel wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, t…

Hang on, I'm confused. If you think nuclear energy is good, why should the others get a chance? Surely we should go with the best option (which obviously includes diversity, but ought to have the overall best as its main component.) I don't mean to be rude, but this isn't a playground. Solar power will not get a complex if nuclear is chosen instead. Our way of life depends on energy, and just hoping other sources wil…

>Solar power will not get a complex if nuclear is chosen instead.

I think we'll run out of economically extractable ore deposits of nuclear fuels a little before Sol goes supernova. Perhaps that's it.

Also, unless he edited, he said that Nuclear was "safe enough" not that it was the best option. Even if it were the best primary option I wouldn't want to rely on it exclusively; personally I consider that "renewable" sources are better. Fusion would appear to be the best if we can get it to work effectively but I'd still look to diversify to some extent.

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

#130

Post by mort »

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…

"I'm not an environmentalist" What exactly do you mean by this?

I don't understand how someone can make such a bold denouncement about something as crucial the system that keeps us alive...

Post reply on HN