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

111–120 of 188 posts

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

#111

Post by Udo »

gmac wrote: post #109
Udo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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')…

I'm still unclear on what that actually means. Surely we can agree that every death or injury is one too many? So is it more ethical to run a well-designed nuclear reactor than a well-designed coal power plant? I think so, and I believe so do you. But that doesn't mean we can shrug off the inherent dangers and drawbacks. Acknowledging these issues does not make a person anti-nuclear per se.

Exclaiming, as the article does, "see, not a single person got hurt, everything is just awesome!" while people in Japan are burying contaminated top-soil from school yards under their front lawn, while everyone carries a dosimeter to gauge how long they can stay outside today, and while thousands of people have lost their homes strikes me as very bad judgement - even if the health statistics have not been manipulated.

By saying that facts and scientific understanding are essential to decision-making, I'm not insinuating these decisions can only be made by scientists. Instead I'm advocating a better scientific/factual understanding by and for everybody. Clearly that is not how things are working right now, but I think it's an important goal to have.

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

#112

Post by jimworm »

justatdotin wrote: post #93
scheeko wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think another parameter is the long-lasting data corruption in the network. Unclean power fades the processor channel on your hard drive.

EDIT: this is a sarcastic response to a comment that backs up an assertion with nonsense.

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

#114

Post by colinshark »

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.

The problem of radioactive waste...

Let's put it this way:

In exchange for clean, constant, domestically sourced, almost unlimited energy for an entire year, each person must dispose of or store their waste, which is the size of...

A pill of aspirin.

You could just put it in a little lead jar. That's all the waste. The alternative is fossil fuel waste, which would be...

10 tons of CO2 (volume = 5 American houses) which floats into the atmosphere, plus 2 tons of coal ash.

Of course, everyone can just pool their resources and put all the radioactive waste together. I don't consider it to be a very serious or unsolvable problem.

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

#115

Post by dragontamer »

peterpathname wrote: post #108
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

http://singularityhub.com/2012/12/11/norway-begins-four-year...

Thorium Reactors exist and are being tested in other countries. Unlike Uranium, it is impossible to create a chain reaction and go critical.

Thorium also creates 40x more energy than a Uranium reaction.

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

#116

Post by digikata »

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…

You'll get a lot of comments regarding the grid's immaturity to handle a variable load of renewable sources, but the the path of building new nuclear power plant designs as well as forecasts of the ability to store waste for their planned cost has even less maturity.

Living in Southern California, I've been watching the botched upgrade of the San Onofre plant power generation system. There was a well understood, existing design being upgraded with modern engineering under a regulatory watch of the NRC. Nobody in any quarter of that case wanted the upgrade to fail, but despite best efforts and intentions, there was a critical failure in the equipment.

The cost of storing nuclear waste falls under similar uncertainty, efforts to build long term storage facilities in the US and UK have huge cost growth, pointing at the immaturity of the ability to plan, cost-estimate, and technically achieve the goal.

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

#117

Post by juandopazo »

colinshark wrote: post #114
elorant wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem of radioactive waste... Let's put it this way: In exchange for clean, constant, domestically sourced, almost unlimited energy for an entire year, each person must dispose of or store their waste, which is the size of... A pill of aspirin. You could just put it in a little lead jar. That's all the waste. The alternative is fossil fuel waste, which would be... 10 tons of CO2 (volume = 5 American houses) whi…

> The alternative is fossil fuel waste

You make it sounds as if there were no other alternative.

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

#118

Post by kmm »

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.

Nuclear waste is stored very, very deep and secure. I cannot imagine future humans having the technology to open these up, without knowing what is in there. Either we lose all of our knowledge and no soul will ever see that site, or we stay an advanced civilization and we are warned of the dangers before opening the nuclear waste facilities.

Don't forget that uranium is found naturally in the ground, in geologically vastly more unstable regions, with water flowing through it. What we're doing is concentrating the radioactivity, and putting it deeper and safer. If you're afraid of mankind finding these waste sites in the future, are you not afraid of them finding uranium in their drinking water?

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

#120

Post by _delirium »

kmm wrote: post #118
elorant wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nuclear waste is stored very, very deep and secure. I cannot imagine future humans having the technology to open these up, without knowing what is in there. Either we lose all of our knowledge and no soul will ever see that site, or we stay an advanced civilization and we are warned of the dangers before opening the nuclear waste facilities. Don't forget that uranium is found naturally in the ground, in geologically…

> Nuclear waste is stored very, very deep and secure.

Ideally it would be. But in many cases in practice, that isn't the case, because those facilities have either not been built, or not opened. In the U.S., since the long-planned Yucca Mountain facility has never opened, most nuclear waste is stored on-site at the reactor complex, in above-ground facilities. For the first few years it's immersed in cooling pools [1], and then subsequently is parked in metal/concrete cylinders [2]. This is considered interim storage awaiting final burial in geologically stable vaults, but without Yucca Mountain the "interim" storage has become de-facto permanent.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage

Post reply on HN