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

21–30 of 188 posts

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

#21

Post by onli »

ars wrote: post #5
_mulder_ wrote: post #2

Never mind that coal mining kills almost 6000 people a year, or that populations of coal-mining areas have death rates about 10 per cent higher than non-mining areas, or that coal emissions drive global warming. I'm fully in favour of nuclear power but using partial evidence and misleading comparisons to back up arguments does not help the cause. You can't compare the death toll of mining coal to the death toll of a…

> They are completely different things having no common factors. No common factors? Really? They are both used to make energy. Coal is 1,888 times more deadly than nuclear power when measured in deaths per MW. According to http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de... And that includes Chernobyl, and uses the worst case scenario for the effects of radiation! If you removed Chernobyl and used http://…

> And that includes Chernobyl, and uses the worst case scenario for the effects of radiation!

I know he writes that, but the numbers used aren't mentioned and not easily to research, as far as i saw. I heavily doubt that statement.

An article talking about "two failures" of nuclear plants isn't believable, there were quite a few more.

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

#22

Post by shawabawa3 »

onli wrote: post #19
ghshephard wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

but at the moment, coal is the alternative.

Coal provides something like 25% of the world's energy production. Solar and wind more like 2%.

The more nuclear plants we build the more coal ones we can shut down.

The more wind and solar we build, the more coal we can shut down too, but it will take a lot longer and a lot more money to replace coal with wind and solar than with nuclear.

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

#23

Post by JanezStupar »

onli wrote: post #19
ghshephard wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Solar and wind are ways off replacing nuclear and fossil fuels.

There is no way we could switch to solar/wind without moving to the 1800's. There are many technological and economic issues with large scale solar/wind. We need to build better grids, we need storage for when sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow...

Realistically we are at least 20 years from the point where renewables could overcome fossil. And that is assuming optimistic scenario.

If we plowed all this funding into nuclear power research we would get far more out of our investment.

e.g.: You can use (advanced) nuclear power anywhere, while solar and wind are less than suitable for outer space applications, etc.

This is why I feel that people that support "green" agenda are hurting environment and our species.

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

#24

Post by yk »

jonmrodriguez wrote: post #11
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.

Since the link to the source of the first table in that blog post does not work:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/... (pdf, Wilson &al. IAEA Bulletin 41/1 1999)

Additionally, I recall that there are some problems with the estimate. For example it assumes that there are no more major accidents after Chernobyl. And he uses the WHO study, which may underestimate cancer fatalities by an order of magnitude. For a nice discussion of the problems of studies of Chernobyl see:

http://allthingsnuclear.org/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-r...

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

#25

Post by aidanhs »

onli wrote: post #19
ghshephard wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As noted in another comment, right now solar and wind are not a viable alternative. Hopefully in time, though I'm not sure it will ever be possible to completely do away with location-agnostic power generation (coal, nuclear).

> We can't manage nuclear waste.

But it is tightly regulated and under close scrutiny, unlike coal ash contamination.

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

#26

Post by JanezStupar »

onli wrote: post #21
ars wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are completely different things having no common factors. No common factors? Really? They are both used to make energy. Coal is 1,888 times more deadly than nuclear power when measured in deaths per MW. According to http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de... And that includes Chernobyl, and uses the worst case scenario for the effects of radiation! If you removed Chernobyl and used http://…

> And that includes Chernobyl, and uses the worst case scenario for the effects of radiation! I know he writes that, but the numbers used aren't mentioned and not easily to research, as far as i saw. I heavily doubt that statement. An article talking about "two failures" of nuclear plants isn't believable, there were quite a few more.

All the benefits of solar/wind are not easy to research, as far as I saw. I heavily doubt that statement.

Can you see what I did there?

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

#27

Post by yk »

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…

The question how many people have died will probably not be answered in a couple of decades. The problem is, that the sample size is limited and disentangling various reasons for diseases is quite hard. For example the highest radiation dosage after Chernobyl was in Belarus, but the population there did also go through the collapse of the Soviet Union.

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

#28

Post by qb45 »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #15

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.

Billions spent decomissioning, billions spent building, billions spent operating and billions saved on coal mining and transportation.

Probably people and companies who decided to invest billions in nuclear plants did some cost-benefit analysis.

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

#29

Post by onli »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #22
onli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

but at the moment, coal is the alternative. Coal provides something like 25% of the world's energy production. Solar and wind more like 2%. The more nuclear plants we build the more coal ones we can shut down. The more wind and solar we build, the more coal we can shut down too, but it will take a lot longer and a lot more money to replace coal with wind and solar than with nuclear.

Look at germany. Alternative energy doesn't have to be used that little.

On a worldwide scale, it is even a different thing. You can't simply replace coal with nuclear energy worldwide, even if you were absolutely convinced that nuclear energy is safe when properly used and you have a concept for the nuclear waste produced like shooting it into space. Because many countries are just too instable, poor and iniffecient to consider building a nuclear plant. It wouldn't be safe at all. Also, don't overestimate the availability of uranium, which is estimated to only reach till 2080 (depends on who you ask probably).

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

#30

Post by qb45 »

onli wrote: post #19
ghshephard wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Coal isn't the alternative, solar and wind are

Still really aren't and definitely weren't when Fukushima was built.

> Nuclear energy has a fairly high CO2 output, if you count it all together.

Care to elaborate?

Post reply on HN