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

Safe Enough?

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–74 of 74 posts

Re: Safe Enough?

#71

Post by Panzer04 »

totetsu wrote: post #15

In the hypothetical situation where Tokyo needed to be evacuated, or a large enough portion of the population there feared for their health and wanted to leave, i wonder if in the long term, the redistribution of population back into regional Japan would not be a good thing over all.

At the risk of being glib, of course not?

People have a hard on for regional areas, but the practical reality is people enjoy the benefits of living in cities too much to want to live in rural areas. They are also way worse at actually providing for the needs of those people efficiently.

Re: Safe Enough?

#72

Post by FeepingCreature »

snovv_crash wrote: post #51
FeepingCreature wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had nuclear plants been treated the way airplanes are treated, any fault in one plant would lead to steps to redesign all of them, present and future, to definitively avoid this fault; and frankly, the fact that this is not being done is such a massive fuckup that it's making me more anti-nuclear. My pro-nuclear position is based on an assumption of baseline competence! This doesn't seem to actually be the case!

Incorrect, old aircraft are grandfathered into new regulations. This is why it's so hard to get the GA industry to switch away from leaded avgas, because it's almost impossible to certify new engines.

Does this apply to safety issues as well?

Re: Safe Enough?

#73

Post by drpixie »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #59
drpixie wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - cost v benefit - ha! I don't see nuclear proponents comparing potential cost (say $10T) against benefit (power produced during plant's lifetime - optimistically $10B (over 30 years). That's 1000:1 against. By wikipedia, there are about 170 nuclear power plants and have been 6 accidents costing over $1B - approximately 1 in 30 plants have had very expensive accidents. Those odds don't make sense for any country.…

> By wikipedia... This is exactly what I'm talking about – provide the bloody link so we can actually check your claims. Provide a link! Don't just tell us, allow us to verify! Edit: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster "Initial estimates of costs to Japanese taxpayers were in excess of 12 trillion yen ($100 billion).[299] In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensatio…

For the record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations

And "I do not think that [comment] means what you think it means." You seem to think that I see an upside to nuclear power. Read the comment.

Re: Safe Enough?

#74

Post by taneq »

verve_rat wrote: post #55
taneq wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? A tsunami 500m high is not something you’d miss.

524m, 5 dead. In 1958. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lituya_Bay_earthquake_a...

OK so (a) this is a very different event to what we typically think of as a tsunami.

And (b) holy crap that's terrifying.

Post reply on HN