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

71–80 of 188 posts

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

#71

Post by scheeko »

mixmax wrote: post #45

I have a personal theory, that I haven't really been able to confirm or deny. Here it is. After Hiroshima and during the cold war nuclear energy was associated with death and destruction. Hiroshima for obvious reasons, and the cold war because the population of the western world was constantly reminded how The Soviet Union had thousands of missiles with nuclear bombs pointing at us, ready to go. Western governments u…

It's likely more than that. Chernobyl had a great impact on people's idea of nuclear. Also its damage, when occurring, is done in a spectacular way by something invisible. Radiation poisoning is dramatic, horrific and you can't see, smell or feel. That scares the living hell out of most people and the fact that is statistically unlikely becomes irrelevant as soon as it becomes an irrational fear.

There are things that cause more deaths by cancer, slowly and steadily, that don't (or didn't) scare anyone - tobacco was an example. Junk food may be another.

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

#72

Post by gmac »

mixmax wrote: post #45

I have a personal theory, that I haven't really been able to confirm or deny. Here it is. After Hiroshima and during the cold war nuclear energy was associated with death and destruction. Hiroshima for obvious reasons, and the cold war because the population of the western world was constantly reminded how The Soviet Union had thousands of missiles with nuclear bombs pointing at us, ready to go. Western governments u…

> Through decades the population was told by the government that nuclear radiation was the evil silent killer.

Well, two out of three's not bad: it is silent, and it can kill.

> people are now irrationally scared of nuclear radiation from power plants

You may not fear nuclear energy, but it's not irrational to do so.

Even the current generation of reactors rely on active safety systems, and can't just be shut down. Even with multiple redundant systems of this sort, things will go wrong, since making these systems truly independent — including in the face of floods, earthquakes, human error, etc. — is effectively impossible.

So plants will continue to melt down from time to time, irradiating large areas of land. Bad luck if those areas are near you: in the best case, you'll have to leave your home and neighbourhood for decades.

Sure, it's a low probability event for each of us, but in my opinion those consequences are unacceptable for essentially any probability of occurrence.

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

#73

Post by jsmeaton »

Udo wrote: post #48

The article reads as if it was commissioned by Tepco directly. Nuclear power is not risk-free. Plants need to be operated with competent designs under the watchful eyes of competent engineers. None of which was the case at Fukushima. The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct but misleading: it doesn't mean people get to ignore the dangers. Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukus…

But the article mentions the facts and scientific judgements:

> the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has drawn on 80 scientists from 18 countries to produce a draft report that concludes: "Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers.

What you've done is read (or not) an article discussing the findings of a bunch of independent commissions, decided that there must be something missing, and bemoaned the fact that people are applauding nuclear energy.

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

#74

Post by lclarkmichalek »

jasonkester wrote: post #67
lkozma wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you are arguing with the parent post? I think he's expressing a pro-nuclear sentiment similar to yours.

The nice thing about this place is that you don't have to be arguing to reply to a post. We sometimes have discussions where participants agree with one another, or even change their minds about things. It's a unique feature, so don't feel bad if it takes a while to get used to.

It's not a unique feature at all. On reddit it happens a lot, and when it gets out of hand we call it a circlejerk.

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

#75

Post by s_kilk »

mixmax wrote: post #45

I have a personal theory, that I haven't really been able to confirm or deny. Here it is. After Hiroshima and during the cold war nuclear energy was associated with death and destruction. Hiroshima for obvious reasons, and the cold war because the population of the western world was constantly reminded how The Soviet Union had thousands of missiles with nuclear bombs pointing at us, ready to go. Western governments u…

Related to your link, Not propaganda, but a weird pseudo-documentary drama about nuclear devastation over Sheffield: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads

It's a "fun" watch, probably the most frightening piece of film I've ever seen.

EDIT: and a link to the fun part, for the lazy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKLSGLjcJJc

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

#76

Post by walshemj »

mje__ wrote: post #39
onli wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you'll find that Germany isn't replacing nuclear power, just buying it from outside their borders instead of generating it themselves [1]. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/greenwashing-af...

Or gas from that nice Mr Putin

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

#77

Post by fhd2 »

mixmax wrote: post #45

I have a personal theory, that I haven't really been able to confirm or deny. Here it is. After Hiroshima and during the cold war nuclear energy was associated with death and destruction. Hiroshima for obvious reasons, and the cold war because the population of the western world was constantly reminded how The Soviet Union had thousands of missiles with nuclear bombs pointing at us, ready to go. Western governments u…

> If you look at the numbers you'll see that nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest scalable energy source we've got. It's the energy source that has the fewest deaths per MWH produced, it doesn't produce CO2, etc. etc.

How about nuclear waste though? Where do we put that? I'm with you, it seems like humanity at large is hysterical beyond reasonable levels about radiation. However, it's not like it's completely harmless or unproblematic either.

Maybe - just maybe - we should just use less energy, so that the renewables suffice. Just a crazy idea.

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

#78

Post by VLM »

mixmax wrote: post #45

I have a personal theory, that I haven't really been able to confirm or deny. Here it is. After Hiroshima and during the cold war nuclear energy was associated with death and destruction. Hiroshima for obvious reasons, and the cold war because the population of the western world was constantly reminded how The Soviet Union had thousands of missiles with nuclear bombs pointing at us, ready to go. Western governments u…

"I blame the cold war propoganda for our irrational fear of nuclear energy."

That's interesting, certainly very complicated, but consider an occams razor explanation like "Dumb people almost always viciously hate whatever they don't understand, and (intentionally?) not too many people understand nukes, so ... "

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

#79

Post by JoeAltmaier »

gmac wrote: post #72
mixmax wrote: post #45

I have a personal theory, that I haven't really been able to confirm or deny. Here it is. After Hiroshima and during the cold war nuclear energy was associated with death and destruction. Hiroshima for obvious reasons, and the cold war because the population of the western world was constantly reminded how The Soviet Union had thousands of missiles with nuclear bombs pointing at us, ready to go. Western governments u…

> Through decades the population was told by the government that nuclear radiation was the evil silent killer. Well, two out of three's not bad: it is silent, and it can kill. > people are now irrationally scared of nuclear radiation from power plants You may not fear nuclear energy, but it's not irrational to do so. Even the current generation of reactors rely on active safety systems, and can't just be shut down. E…

The fear prevents development of safe nuclear reactors. Irrational, yes?

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

#80

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Udo wrote: post #69
gmac wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct ... there is a middle ground supported by facts and scientific judgement There's really no such thing as a 'correct' argument on these issues. Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average , but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which…

> Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average, but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths. But, yes, nuclear disasters are potentially much worse if things go wrong. [ http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-... ] > Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is better: that…

Um, Fukoshima went very, very wrong, and there were Zero deaths/sickness. That was the point of the article. And these were the worst reactors currently in service.

That leaves us with safer, more productive reactors. The future holds even safer reactors. This seems like a good trajectory for everybody.

Post reply on HN