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

181–188 of 188 posts

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

#181

Post by ori_b »

peterpathname wrote: post #180
ori_b wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fukushima (1971) predated Chernobyl (1977).

sure. whats to bet tho that the next reactor disaster uses the same unhelpful rationalisation, that better designs are just around the corner.

Better designs aren't "just around the corner". They're 25 year in the past.

We aren't building them because people are too afraid to build new plants. We're keeping plants based on 50 year old designs around because we need the power. These plants require weapons grade uranium. They are inefficient. They are expensive to run. They are physically able to melt down. They produce more waste than needed. Their waste can be used to make weapons.

These are all solved problems. They were solved decades ago. It's about time that they werer implemented.

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

#182

Post by peterpathname »

ori_b wrote: post #181
peterpathname wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure. whats to bet tho that the next reactor disaster uses the same unhelpful rationalisation, that better designs are just around the corner.

Better designs aren't "just around the corner". They're 25 year in the past. We aren't building them because people are too afraid to build new plants. We're keeping plants based on 50 year old designs around because we need the power. These plants require weapons grade uranium. They are inefficient. They are expensive to run. They are physically able to melt down. They produce more waste than needed. Their waste can…

and, whats the bet the industry's supporters will be offering that same unhelpful rationalisation, come the next reactor failure.

I don't accept that the significant disqualifications you raise are all 'solved problems'. some are solved. some mitigated. I do accept the scenario I think you're describing: the US[a] is choosing to extend licenses to old plants instead of building safer ones. But beyond the US[a], I'm concerned we're illogically facilitating development of more conventional reactors that offer none of these benefits, in part under the cover of promises that the industry is moving in the right direction. That's the disconnect I see between promises and realities.

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

#183

Post by mpyne »

peterpathname wrote: post #179
mpyne wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nuclear industry honestly couldn't give one shit about whether regulators choose LNT/ALARA or "hormesis". If anything hormesis would make their work planning more difficult as then they'd possibly have to worry about ensuring their workers have enough exposure. ALARA is simple and easy and would remain used for work planning. But either way, nuclear emits less radiation than coal, so if you're worried about publi…

they don't care? so you may say, my experience is that the industry includes some players who duck and weave to try to evade application of existing regulatory radiation limits. and again the coal/nukes false dichotomy. the fact that this is fundamentally flawed thinking is highlighted by your conclusion that more nuclear plants reduce public radiation exposure.

The only people who think thermal power generation is a false dichotomy are those who haven't tried to spec out power generation schemes that rely completely on unreliable renewables. Specifically, renewables have a much different capacity factor than thermal power designs (like coal or nuclear) and therefore require a very heavy investment in energy storage schemes, especially if the plan is to go 100% renewable.

Even in Germany, which is the example everyone points to, 80% of the shift away from nuclear has been towards coal. Even natural gas would be better than shifting to coal! And despite only shifting 20% of that generation to renewables there have been increasing problems with frequency variation and brief power interruptions on the grid due to the much higher variability in power output from renewable.

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

#185

Post by blablabla123 »

mixmax wrote: post #131
blablabla123 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's the energy source that has the fewest deaths per MWH produced Source? I want to remind that the nuclear material needs to be mined somewhere. I never worked in a Uranium mine but it's probably not the healthiest job in the world. Then the material needs to be transported, transported a long way. During this way it gets enriched, used, cooled down. Maybe even re-enriched, used, some part get stuck in walls, pipe…

Here is a source - http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so... Note that nuclear is significantly safer than even hydro and solar. I think your fear of uranium mines is overblown, as these numbers are included in the calculations. Many more people die in coalmines. Did you know that a coal plant emits significantly more radiation than a nuclear plant because coal is radioactive and isn't shielded…

mixmax, this source is about China.

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

#186

Post by blablabla123 »

dpark wrote: post #145
blablabla123 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's the energy source that has the fewest deaths per MWH produced Source? I want to remind that the nuclear material needs to be mined somewhere. I never worked in a Uranium mine but it's probably not the healthiest job in the world. Then the material needs to be transported, transported a long way. During this way it gets enriched, used, cooled down. Maybe even re-enriched, used, some part get stuck in walls, pipe…

> NO insurance company in the world will insure a nuclear power plant. This is hardly a meaningful claim. Insurance companies in the US won't write flood insurance policies, either. This doesn't mean that your house is very likely to get washed away in a flood. It means that the business is not profitable because no one wants to pay the premiums required to insure for the worst-case, nor do insurance companies want t…

> This is hardly a meaningful claim. Insurance companies in the US won't write flood insurance policies, either.

Insurance companies in the EU do, you need to pay for it though.

>As a counter-point, hydroelectric power plants are also not insured for worst-case scenarios. And when hydroelectric

>dams fail, the results can be orders of magnitude worse than Nuclear meltdown.

Interesting, so do you think Three Gorges Dam is a good idea?

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

#187

Post by humain »

What are two years compared to a gigantic pollution of products that will stay dangerous for 300 years?

What a pro-nuclear disinformation article! That's a shame but so classic of general disinformation on this subject. Costs, dangers, reality of contamination, waste dangers, ... just listen to real independent scientists and concerned actors. The writer and its commissioners don't live in contaminated areas, and they probably don't care about future of these populations. Listen to real people there, for example search for "Women of Fukushima" videos : www.women-of-fukushima.com

A few simple facts : 27 years after Tchernobyl, 3 children out of 4 are ill in Bielarus. 2 years after Fukushima, twelve children of Fukushima have confirmed thyroid cancer et 15 are suspected.

Shame!

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

#188

Post by jimworm »

justatdotin wrote: post #177
jimworm wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

unlike some of the other risks to life listed, ionizing radiation can cause genetic damage. An impact that is passed on to future generations. I propose that's a factor for the special place the nuclear industry has in so many hearts. how's that nonsense?

That is a theoretical possibility, and a highly unlikely and unobserved possibility at that. Real life mutations aren't like in children's cartoons. Most of the genetic material in a multicellular organism do not belong to germ cells, and most mutations caused by ionizing radiation either cause death of the cell or no effect at all, especially in eukaryotic chromosomes. Cancer, highly unlikely itself, is many orders of magnitude more likely than any inheritable effect.

Studies of the Chernobyl disaster have not found evidence of teratogenic effects in humans [1], and neither have studies of survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings [2].

The malevolent-sounding yet meaningless phrase "fades your genes" is nothing short of nonsense, especially in reference to inheritable teratogenic effects. The number of special places in hearts can do nothing to alter that judgement.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10440782

[2] http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html

Post reply on HN