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

Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 166 posts

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#11

Post by bb88 »

ysleepy wrote: post #6

Ah yes, decidedly pro-nuclear stance here. The first obvious omissions that come to mind are: 1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. 2. There is no data on how not evacuating would have affected the people, since that was not done, making that comparison with such certainty seems a bit overconfident. Nuclear in general: H…

>1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time.

Once the accident starts, there's maybe a handful of people that really know what's going on, if that. Worse, is if there's a "fog of war"-like scenario where they can't see inside, their sensors aren't working, and they have to send sacrificial humans in to get word back to the control.

I keep thinking about this event. Some people might speculate that the fallout level would have been low across Europe as a whole. But, who's to say really until you cross that bridge? And do you really want to cross that bridge to find out?

https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-...

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#12

Post by ysleepy »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #9
ysleepy wrote: post #6

Ah yes, decidedly pro-nuclear stance here. The first obvious omissions that come to mind are: 1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. 2. There is no data on how not evacuating would have affected the people, since that was not done, making that comparison with such certainty seems a bit overconfident. Nuclear in general: H…

> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? "Nuclear waste" is an artificial problem. It is possible to build reactors that use the "nuclear waste" from existing reactors as fuel, which destroys it forever. We haven't done this primarily because people keep refusing to build new reactors that do this until we figure out what…

In the same sense that we will all be saved by CO2 capturing devices?

These kinds of reactors (Travelling Wave Reactor etc.) you mention are vapourware and have been for quite some time. And I highly doubt the "which destroys it forever" part, - really, no waste at all, magic you say?

This is just more of "Future Tech will solve this" externalization of problems.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#13

Post by semaj111 »

ysleepy wrote: post #6

Ah yes, decidedly pro-nuclear stance here. The first obvious omissions that come to mind are: 1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. 2. There is no data on how not evacuating would have affected the people, since that was not done, making that comparison with such certainty seems a bit overconfident. Nuclear in general: H…

You are right about the waste, it really sucks. But I still feel like abandoning nuclear energy now would be incredibly bad timing, given the urgence of reducing our carbon footprint. It's kind of ok not have a 100k years storage facility yet since it is a long term problem. Climate change is a problem we should have started tackling decades ago, and abandoning nuclear power might worsen it dramatically.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#14

Post by rl3 »

bawolff wrote: post #7

I just skimmed, but they seem to be comparing stress of evacuating vs health risk of staying. What about the stress of knowing you live on nuclear contaminated land. Surely that must be stresful enough to be comparable to the stress of evacuating?

But that stress is statistically irrational. Until you're the one that develops an incurable carcinoma, or has a child with horrific birth defects.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#15

Post by jonahhorowitz »

ysleepy wrote: post #6

Ah yes, decidedly pro-nuclear stance here. The first obvious omissions that come to mind are: 1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. 2. There is no data on how not evacuating would have affected the people, since that was not done, making that comparison with such certainty seems a bit overconfident. Nuclear in general: H…

> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors?

This isn't a complete solution, but reprocessing the nuclear fuel gives you a significantly smaller amount of waste to deal with and also removes some of the most problematic elements - meaning you don't have to worry about 100k years of protection.[0]

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#16

Post by ethanwillis »

semaj111 wrote: post #13
ysleepy wrote: post #6

Ah yes, decidedly pro-nuclear stance here. The first obvious omissions that come to mind are: 1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. 2. There is no data on how not evacuating would have affected the people, since that was not done, making that comparison with such certainty seems a bit overconfident. Nuclear in general: H…

You are right about the waste, it really sucks. But I still feel like abandoning nuclear energy now would be incredibly bad timing, given the urgence of reducing our carbon footprint. It's kind of ok not have a 100k years storage facility yet since it is a long term problem. Climate change is a problem we should have started tackling decades ago, and abandoning nuclear power might worsen it dramatically.

They're not right about the waste. High level radioactive waste will fit in a space about 7 meters high and the area of a football field. That's all nuclear waste since we started operating nuclear reactors... worldwide.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#17

Post by bb88 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #9
ysleepy wrote: post #6

Ah yes, decidedly pro-nuclear stance here. The first obvious omissions that come to mind are: 1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. 2. There is no data on how not evacuating would have affected the people, since that was not done, making that comparison with such certainty seems a bit overconfident. Nuclear in general: H…

> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? "Nuclear waste" is an artificial problem. It is possible to build reactors that use the "nuclear waste" from existing reactors as fuel, which destroys it forever. We haven't done this primarily because people keep refusing to build new reactors that do this until we figure out what…

So this falls into the category of the solution of "X" is more "X".

I'm usually skeptical of arguments like these especially when "X" is complex, potentially harmful, or offered as a magic bullet.

In your case in order to validate claims, I have to be a nuclear scientist to understand the potential ramifications of your argument before I can fully understand the pros/cons.

If as an engineer, I cannot afford the time to do it, how our are politicians supposed to?

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#18

Post by andbberger »

ysleepy wrote: post #6

Ah yes, decidedly pro-nuclear stance here. The first obvious omissions that come to mind are: 1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. 2. There is no data on how not evacuating would have affected the people, since that was not done, making that comparison with such certainty seems a bit overconfident. Nuclear in general: H…

Waste was never really a problem and has been definitively solved. You bury it in a deep unmarked hole. [1]

Go ahead and keep arguing about whether or not nuclear is a good idea. Earth doesn't care. The water will be lapping at your feet soon. How's that for externalizing a cost to future generations?

I am, and will continue to be blown away that the world found out how to make rocks so spicy they can power our civilizations for thousands of years with no carbon 50+ years ago....... and decided to keep burning dead dinosaurs. Fuck big oil, fuck greenpeace, and fuck anyone who is STILL anti-nuclear energy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#19

Post by semaj111 »

ethanwillis wrote: post #16
semaj111 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right about the waste, it really sucks. But I still feel like abandoning nuclear energy now would be incredibly bad timing, given the urgence of reducing our carbon footprint. It's kind of ok not have a 100k years storage facility yet since it is a long term problem. Climate change is a problem we should have started tackling decades ago, and abandoning nuclear power might worsen it dramatically.

They're not right about the waste. High level radioactive waste will fit in a space about 7 meters high and the area of a football field. That's all nuclear waste since we started operating nuclear reactors... worldwide.

It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem, it's the incredibly long duration of its radioactivity. At some point we will need super long term storage, and it's true that there is no viable solution out there yet. Even the most sophisticated facilities can not guarantee that no leakage will contaminate the surroundings at some point. But as I said, I think finding a solution for this should not be our main priority.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#20

Post by sjwright »

ysleepy wrote: post #8
gwbennett wrote: post #4

The US Navy has trained thousands of 18-25 year old men and women to operate hundreds of reactors around the world safety for over 60 years. I was one of them. I have not been an operator for many years, but the latest reactor designs are amazingly safe and reliable. The world needs more safe, clean, cheap and reliable power. Nuclear power is one of the answers.

Did they teach you where the nuclear waste goes too?

The worst plausible answer couldn’t possibly be worse than pumping it directly into the air we breathe, as we do with diesel and coal.
Post reply on HN