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

91–100 of 188 posts

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

#91

Post by nemof »

elorant wrote: post #89
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…

What about nuclear waste though? You end up with some tons of radioactive material which you have to store in high-security underground facilities with the hope that in some time in the future humanity will find a way to dispose it in a safer way.

one possibility which has never seen the light of day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor#Nuclear_w...

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

#92

Post by justatdotin »

elorant wrote: post #89
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…

What about nuclear waste though? You end up with some tons of radioactive material which you have to store in high-security underground facilities with the hope that in some time in the future humanity will find a way to dispose it in a safer way.

G'day mate, here in australia we're leading the world in nuclear waste storage. After giving our best scientists 30 years to spend on the question, we've finally brought it to a head, and are in the process of unveiling a state of the art solution.

here's what we've done: found a remote and isolated spot of land in the middle of a 3000km long highway. we've paid a pittance and reminded the small local indigenous community who actually own the land that they don't have any political, economic or social power. Their economic disempowerment was exacerbated a couple of years after they were targetted, when new apartheid-style laws quarantined welfare to natives. Their political disempowerment was reinforced by unprecedented laws that negate their rights as land owners and remove any possible legal obstacle to the dump plan.

Right, so with the social engineering out of the way, let's get into the nuts and bolts: we're gonna grade a dirt road onto a dry patch of land, and build a barbed wire shed. to hold the most highly radioactive nuclear wastes we produce.

I'm sure before too long the rest of the world will get on side to endorse the engineering, and of course site selection.

As we say down under, she'll be right mate!

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

#93

Post by justatdotin »

scheeko wrote: post #71
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 tha…

I think another parameter is the intergenerational teratogenic impacts: Radiation fades your genes.

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

#94

Post by spauka »

PacoLinux wrote: post #50

http://enenews.com/kyodo-27-fukushima-minors-with-confirmed-...

From your link:

>Researchers at Fukushima Medical University, which has been taking the leading role in the study, have so far said they do not believe that the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis.

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

#95

Post by rolleiflex »

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…

I find it similar to the risk of an airplane death. Both of those are deemed by 'rationalists' as irrational fears, as airplanes are by and large, safer than driving cars. However, considering the outcomes the fear is not as irrational; there are a significant chance of surviving a car accident, but almost none at all of a plane one. It also comes with a bonus of a few minutes of horrifying fall into your inevitable doom, too.

Nuclear plants can be safe, but when they fail the results are often catastrophic. People prefer to live with many small dangers rather than one giant but very unlikely one, and while it may be called out as irrational in the strictest definition of reason, it's perfectly human.

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

#96

Post by justatdotin »

wyred wrote: post #40

From this article, 12 minors in the Fukushima prefecture have been confirmed to have thyroid cancer. Which usually strikes 1 to 2 for every million. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/05/national/fukushi...

we can expect more in coming years.

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

#97

Post by gjnxfrnv »

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…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Nuclear_prolifera...

"Many technologies and materials associated with the creation of a nuclear power program have a dual-use capability, in that they can be used to make nuclear weapons if a country chooses to do so. "

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

#98

Post by Symmetry »

elorant wrote: post #89
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…

What about nuclear waste though? You end up with some tons of radioactive material which you have to store in high-security underground facilities with the hope that in some time in the future humanity will find a way to dispose it in a safer way.

Well, the really radioactive parts of the waste will decay after a fairly short number of years. With regards to the less radioactive, slower decaying part I'm not sure why we worry about it so much more than naturally occurring radioactive substances. There are streams in Colorado that are measurably radioactive because they interact with natural Uranium deposits but the levels are low enough to not pose a real public health hazard. I don't see why buried man-made radioactive substances are unacceptable when buried natural radioactive substances aren't.

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

#99

Post by astine »

_mulder_ wrote: post #56
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://…

Yes there are no common factors between mining a product and an industrial accident occurring when using a product. Agreed, they are all part of the mix when comparing the overall life-cycle dangers of different fuels, but the Author of the article is not comparing like-with-like. If you're comparing Coal vs Nuclear, you can only compare the death toll of mining coal with the death toll of mining uranium. Or the heal…

No, not really.

That article would indeed be a problem, but only if it ignored either Volvo manufacturing deaths or BMW driving deaths. An article comparing total Vovlo and BMW related deaths as a measure of the make's cost to society would present a valid argument. Granted, generally when someone calls and automobile make "safe," they mean safe to drive, and that's what matters to car buyers, but part of the point of this article is that's not what matters when discussing power plants, which are payed for by 'society' rather than individual buyers.

Total deaths from Coal power generation vs Nuclear Power generation is indeed a meaningful comparison.

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

#100

Post by artmageddon »

s_kilk wrote: post #75
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

I remember watching Threads years ago... creepy as hell, but well worth it.
Post reply on HN