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

Nuclear power is too safe

jackdevanney.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 201 posts

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#81

Post by synecdoche »

elcritch wrote: post #69
uecker wrote: post #49

As a physicist and full professor in medical imaging I can ensure you somewhat authoritatively: You can simply disregard every clown on the internet who dismisses linear no threshold out of hand. This is fairly sure sign that this person relies on pseudoscientific sources, also promoted by certain industries and shills which generally lobby against anti-pollution laws and sadly adopted by some pro-nuclear lobbyists.…

Okay great, you've established some measure of credibility. But given the number of medical treatments and established methods of with zero actual backing evidence, could you cite some decent support for LNT? Currently TFA links to some interesting arguments in favor of a time-rate dependent factor that incorporates cellular repair mechanisms. At first glance that seems plausible, especially below a certain threshold…

Claims based on arguments similar to "because I said so, and I should know" are dubious in my opinion, because how is one supposed to distinguish those claims from mere opinion? Instead arguments should point to evidence that provide new information or counter examples, if they are to have a chance to be convincing.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#82

Post by [deleted] »

psychoslave wrote: post #70

Premises exposed in the first paragraph feels completely out of touch with reality to me. You can not compare death by, say accident in building construction, with those caused by a major nuclear incident. If anything, deaths caused by such a punctual event is marginal compared to the global effect of nuclear industry, its mines, its million year wastes and the awfully embarassing target it provides in military confl…

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#83

Post by bottlepalm »

synecdoche wrote: post #68
bottlepalm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only does it need water, but the water can't stop for any reason without resulting in a disaster. You have to keep that spent fuel cool otherwise it'll burn itself.

> On top of that, nuclear power needs a lot of water. This means they can become less reliable, especially once they age. > Not only does it need water, but the water can't stop for any reason without resulting in a disaster. You have to keep that spent fuel cool otherwise it'll burn itself. I'd say your information is incomplete. Nuclear power does not necessarily need water. Modern reactor designs do not use water…

Modern? They’ve been talking about ‘modern’ fail safe designs for decades. Where are they?

The problem is none of the existing 400 reactors are fail safe and none are being built.

Don’t use fantasy reactors that don’t exist to support the status quo.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#84

Post by dirkt »

minebreaker wrote: post #42

I'm pretty sure nuclear power plants are safe if operated properly. I'm pretty sure they are not and will not be operated properly. Especially in Japan, where I live. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accidents

And I am still waiting for the Russians to "accidentally" blow up Zaporizhzhia [1] while conducting their military operations there. Which will cause a nice fallout in the rest of Europe.

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

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#86

Post by fomine3 »

ainiriand wrote: post #71
illiarian wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note how the total deaths directly attributable to Japan's worst nuclear incidents (including Fukushima) is... three.

Sad thing is that some consequences are only seen after a decade, like cancer incidence in a population. A similar thing happened in East Palestine derail, mortality is 0 by the accident itself and the long-term consequences are ignored. I guess you cannot produce an argument in favor of just not maintaining rail tracks just because nobody dies from those accidents... But I guess all of that tends to be forgotten by…

So let's see the result after a decade ago. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2020_2021_2....

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#87

Post by 7952 »

synecdoche wrote: post #68
bottlepalm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only does it need water, but the water can't stop for any reason without resulting in a disaster. You have to keep that spent fuel cool otherwise it'll burn itself.

> On top of that, nuclear power needs a lot of water. This means they can become less reliable, especially once they age. > Not only does it need water, but the water can't stop for any reason without resulting in a disaster. You have to keep that spent fuel cool otherwise it'll burn itself. I'd say your information is incomplete. Nuclear power does not necessarily need water. Modern reactor designs do not use water…

The scary failure mode to the public for wind power can be easily mitigated. They have a buffer distance from places humans will be. So that if the turbine falls over or explodes no one will get hurt. You can make it safe with a map and a ruler.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#88

Post by [deleted] »

bottlepalm wrote: post #36
coldtea wrote: post #9

LOL. He laments how billions are spent for nuclear reactor safety and then uses the casualty numbers based on those billions being spent [1], to calculate the casualty impact of building nuclear factories with more abandon and without such spending (as if the numbers would be the same). Also hidden in the small print, the assumption that future accidents would be "no worse" that previous ones. Because, you know, that…

He says 'only' 26 more Fukushima/Chernobyl type accidents. Exclusion zones all around the world. Not many people died hopefully, but you can't go back to your home either.

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#89

Post by illiarian »

lispm wrote: post #74
illiarian wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fukushima was hit by an earthquake and a tsunami. While the earthquake was below the plant's design basis, the tsunami was significantly above. There's 1 (one) death that is the direct result of the Fukushima incident. The plant was built in 1982. I don't think we have anything as safe as nuclear plants.

But still most of the reactors were taken offline and a lot are not coming back. I would invest into a technology which would not take out all similar systems for months and years on a strong earthquake - something which is to expect in Japan.

The reactor was built in 1982. 40 years ago

Are you in all seriousness implying it wasn't built to withstand earthquakes?

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#90

Post by illiarian »

lispm wrote: post #72
illiarian wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note how the total deaths directly attributable to Japan's worst nuclear incidents (including Fukushima) is... three.

Note how long reactors have been offline since the earthquake.

Note how it wasn't just an earthquake. But who am I to stop you from ignoring reality.
Post reply on HN