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

Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

theage.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 188 posts

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#11

Post by jonmrodriguez »

Xylakant wrote: post #7

So now we're all back to "nuclear power is perfectly safe and cheap." The article fails to take into account that radiation is not like poison where you either die or don't. It's a statistical effect and how large the effect is can only be answered in a couple of decades. I'd not want to bet my life on that. Also, the radiation spills are not over yet. Radiated water still leaks from the reactors and flows into the g…

What you say, though true, is borderline FUD.

As AndrewDucker linked to further down the thread, this report http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener... shows that nuclear power has the fewest deaths per terrawatt-hour out of any energy source, and coal has the highest.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#12

Post by andybak »

Xylakant wrote: post #7

So now we're all back to "nuclear power is perfectly safe and cheap." The article fails to take into account that radiation is not like poison where you either die or don't. It's a statistical effect and how large the effect is can only be answered in a couple of decades. I'd not want to bet my life on that. Also, the radiation spills are not over yet. Radiated water still leaks from the reactors and flows into the g…

Apologies for half-remembered hearsay but weren't there conclusions from long-term Chernobyl studies that were basically "we might have seriously overestimated long-term effects of radiation"?

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#13

Post by DanBC »

andybak wrote: post #12
Xylakant wrote: post #7

So now we're all back to "nuclear power is perfectly safe and cheap." The article fails to take into account that radiation is not like poison where you either die or don't. It's a statistical effect and how large the effect is can only be answered in a couple of decades. I'd not want to bet my life on that. Also, the radiation spills are not over yet. Radiated water still leaks from the reactors and flows into the g…

Apologies for half-remembered hearsay but weren't there conclusions from long-term Chernobyl studies that were basically "we might have seriously overestimated long-term effects of radiation"?

It's a bit controversial (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4029607)

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#14

Post by andybak »

DanBC wrote: post #13
andybak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies for half-remembered hearsay but weren't there conclusions from long-term Chernobyl studies that were basically "we might have seriously overestimated long-term effects of radiation"?

It's a bit controversial ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4029607 )

The report I was thinking of was more about the human effects.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#15

Post by DanielBMarkham »

Nobody dead or sick, yet tens of billions spent decommissioning nuclear reactors around the planet -- with all the environmental costs associated with that.

The reason the world continues to pollute more than necessary for the energy we desire has much more to do with the irrationality of people than the physics of energy production.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#17

Post by jlgreco »

robbiep wrote: post #3

I would have thought that the evacuation response and the ability to restore water supply to the fuel rod cooling pools would have had a bit more to do with the lack of deaths than the safety of radiation disaster.. I support nuclear as An energy source but it really seems like we are doing it wrong at the moment - it costs too much, seems like we are, or have been using reactor designs that we probably shouldn't (ie…

There are two separate issues here.

One is the safety of radiation. This is a medical question. It can be tested in the laboratory, but we have enough "field experience" with it by now to know that it is indeed Very Bad News(tm) in high doses.

The second is the safety of nuclear power. This has many factors including the first issue and also including things such as evacuation response. Our ability to recognize threats (such as plainly unsafe radiation) and react effectively and rapidly is itself a reason that nuclear power is safe.

Properly regulated nuclear power is safer than nuclear power that is not. Sort of like how cardiac arrest in Seattle is safer than it is in Detroit, since the EMS response time is about 1/3rd the time.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#18

Post by cytokine_storm »

blablabla123 wrote: post #16

I stopped reading after the first 2 or 3 sentences. In fact even the title is wrong. Sloppy investigation, can be invalidated by 5 seconds of Google.

Really? My 5 seconds of google showed links saying pretty much the same thing as OP's article. No one died from radiation poisoning (yet).

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#19

Post by onli »

ghshephard wrote: post #10
Xylakant wrote: post #7

So now we're all back to "nuclear power is perfectly safe and cheap." The article fails to take into account that radiation is not like poison where you either die or don't. It's a statistical effect and how large the effect is can only be answered in a couple of decades. I'd not want to bet my life on that. Also, the radiation spills are not over yet. Radiated water still leaks from the reactors and flows into the g…

Every single statement you made, with the exception of handling radioactive waste, applies more to coal than it does to nuclear power. Coal pollution doesn't "kill outright" - but does so slowly, over many years, and many, many more people than nuclear power. Coal waste continues to leak into the air, and into water systems. I'm not arguing that Nuclear power is "safe" (nothing, is - even solar power kills many peopl…

I always love it when coal is used as a comparision. Because:

Coal isn't the alternative, solar and wind are

Furthermore:

Nuclear energy has a fairly high CO2 output, if you count it all together. So this argument against coal is itself an argument against nuclear energy.

Most importantly: We can't manage nuclear waste. There is just no feasible scenario which makes sure for future generations that the nuclear waste we produce now won't be the mulch of the society after us. This point is what seems to seperate the people pro and against the sharpest, some seriously believing we could manage that.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#20

Post by JanezStupar »

ghshephard wrote: post #10
Xylakant wrote: post #7

So now we're all back to "nuclear power is perfectly safe and cheap." The article fails to take into account that radiation is not like poison where you either die or don't. It's a statistical effect and how large the effect is can only be answered in a couple of decades. I'd not want to bet my life on that. Also, the radiation spills are not over yet. Radiated water still leaks from the reactors and flows into the g…

Every single statement you made, with the exception of handling radioactive waste, applies more to coal than it does to nuclear power. Coal pollution doesn't "kill outright" - but does so slowly, over many years, and many, many more people than nuclear power. Coal waste continues to leak into the air, and into water systems. I'm not arguing that Nuclear power is "safe" (nothing, is - even solar power kills many peopl…

Also coal power produces more nuclear radiation than nuclear power plants.
Post reply on HN