Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by dpapathanasiou » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 1:29 PM UTC

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…

Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukushima meltdowns were a huge catastrophe that severely impacted a whole region. Ask the people who live(d) there if they think the impact of this thing was overstated in the media - they're likely to tell you if anything consequences were buried not exposed. Even if these very first statistics are true, there is likely to be more impact further down the road. There will be shortened lifespans as a result of exposure. There is massive economic damage as well. People's lives were severely affected. And let's not forget the destroyed reactors still aren't safe. There are very likely huge unpleasant surprises yet to be revealed.

Vice Japan did a fascinating story about a man who's been living inside the exclusion zone[1] and has yet to feel any ill effects of being exposed to radiation (though in the article, he was described as being a freak of nature in that regard).

[1] http://www.vice.com/jp/read/alone-in-the-zone-jp (Japanese)

[2] http://macaronics.com/article/2f7763d5d38a49c5aea761ce2fb2f9... (partially translated into English)

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

#102

Post by peterpathname » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 1:30 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #14

DanBC wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

I think you're talking about the Academy of Sciences, in their review of the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report. Here's my layman understanding: for many years, this authoritative basis for nuclear safety regulation recommended a precautionary adherance to LNT (linear no-threshold), a heuristic that states that small doses of radiation carry smalll risk, corelating to the linear relationship measured at higher doses. The latest review of this important report admitted doubt over the validity of linear models at low doses.

I'm not certain how relevant this is to the fukushima disaster. Certainly, many people are today living in radiation levels well above those which defined the Chernobyl exclusion zone. I guess the abandonment of LNT has fed into the WHO calculations, that actually don't say there will be no deaths, just that the deaths due to the fukushima reactor disasters will not be discernable from cancers expected to occur in the population over the next lifetime due to other causes.

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

#103

Post by peterpathname » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 1:31 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #17

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 threa…

oh, stop being so sensible, pick a side like everyone else ...

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

#104

Post by tonyplee » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 1:34 PM UTC

How many of you who think Nuclear power is safe will

   Visit within 10, 5 miles of Fukoshima power plant ?
   Take your kid(s) there?
   Eat any food produce there in next 5, 10, 20 year? 
   Won't move or leave the area if the government give order to evacuate?
   Won't file any lawsuit against the power company when something happen? 

   Or will knowing buy a house, start a family within evacuation zone (20, 30 miles) to Japan coastal nuclear power plant if it 30, 40, 50% cheaper for similar house AND if you can afford not to?

    Won't object at all after you purchase a house and some company decide to build a nuclear power plant within 20 miles of your house?

    I am an engineer and also think it is safe, but it can't be in my backyard or within 100 miles of silicon valley.  It is perfect safe, good for the environment and produce a lot less CO2 - in Japan.

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

#105

Post by peterpathname » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 1:38 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #70

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…

> nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse If 14-meter tsunami hitting a 70's build nuclear power plant isn't a worst case scenario, what is? Also coal's worst case scenario is global climate change.

to me, a worst case scenario is that one or more of the nutcases who leapfrog a weapons program off the back of the materials, technologies, facilities and expertise developed thru their power program, decides to test a bomb. or shake it angrily. or drop it.

Can anyone here remember going to war because we though the other crazy guy -might- have a coal bomb?

there's more nuclear actors than ever before, and it only takes one of them to have a bad day for all of us to have a bad day.

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

#106

Post by petercooper » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 1:42 PM UTC

rolleiflex wrote: post #95

gmac wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

there are a significant chance of surviving a car accident, but almost none at all of a plane one.

I think this demonstrates the overarching point well because the chances of surviving an air related accident are surprisingly high.

The NTSB figures for people involved in commercial airline accidents between 1983-2000 show that 95.7% of people survived: http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/surviving-a-plane-crash-is-... .. even narrowed down to only the "worst accidents", the overall rate was 76.6%.

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

#107

Post by blablabla123 » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 1:45 PM UTC

cytokine_storm wrote: post #18

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).

The title of the story is "Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick".

6 (?) workers died. Maybe not from poisoning or ionization but from something else caused by the accident. What exactly happened with the "Fukushima 50" is also unclear.

Obviously people are smart enough to carry Dosimeters and to protect themselves from radiation as appropriate and possible.

But please, saying that "nobody died/got killed (yet) from radiation => nobody died/got killed => nobody died because of Nuclear accident" is just naive. The people died because even after the power plant became unusuable, they needed to manage radiation and spreading of nuclear material. You don't exactly have that problem when dealing with non-nuclear plants. Most of the times can just run and wait. In case of a nuclear plant you need to stay on site or else...

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

#108

Post by peterpathname » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 1:45 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #79

gmac wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

safe reactors certainly do exist : on paper.

I'm old enough to remember chernobyl. at the time, we were assured it was a dodgy old design, and that they future models would be foolproof. Then fukushima, and we started hearing the same soothing stories of fantasy designs that could never cause such havoc. Ever since day one, this industry has over-promised and under-delivered. Remember "power too cheap to meter"?

It's right and appropriate that we make decisions based on the realities of the industry's present day detriments, not their promises for tomorrow.

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

#109

Post by gmac » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 1:46 PM UTC

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…

> No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths

Ooops, yes, that's what I meant to say.

> I'm really not sure what the point is besides being contrarian

All I'm saying is that you can't settle this question (or many others) with facts and science alone. Sure, you've got to weigh the facts, but often, including in this case, those have got to feed in to an ethical judgment which is everybody's (not just scientists') to make.

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

#110

Post by JanezStupar » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 1:51 PM UTC

onli wrote: post #88

JanezStupar wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See It is hard to take any of your statements seriously as your reading comprehension is so bad, that you don't even notice that you are arguing with the wrong guy.

You don't know what reading comprehension means. Hint: Remembering a small username not even visible when replying to a comment deeper down in a thread has nothing to do with it.

Indeed if all you care about is hearing your own voice it doesn't really matter what you are saying or to whom you are saying it.