Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 265 posts

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#201

Post by pdonis »

lostlogin wrote: post #185
pdonis wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

risks imposed on people who don't have a choice and don't stand to benefit Huh? People do have a choice to move if they don't want to live near a power plant. And the plant is making the electricity they use, so they do benefit from it. (That said, plenty of nuclear plants have been killed because the people who would have lived near the plant protested.)

Probably the majority don't. The poorer you are the less choices you have. If they can move its probably to another undesirable location. I doubt that those who live by power plants are wealthy.

The poorer you are the less choices you have.

No, the poorer you are the less attractive choices you have. But you still have the ability to weigh your choices and pick the one that poses you the least risk, all things considered.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#202

Post by te_chris »

Bluestrike2 wrote: post #174
yaix wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its both cases of failing government oversight of these industries. Fukushima got worse and worse, because the company was basically doing and saying whatever they wanted (and seemingly still is) with the government just repeating it. Same goes for GMO. Its a good but potentially very dangerous technology. We should not simply allow it because a few billion USD in turnover and GDP growth are promised.

No, we should allow it because GMO represents the potential for increases in agricultural efficiency and total output that mean the difference between millions starving to death or not.

I'm not anti-GMO, but your argument is incredibly weak and completely ignores biodiversity and vendor lock in concerns (i.e Monsanto seeds requiring to be re-sown, thus repurchased after every harvest) that seem to be the main angle from most anti-GMO people I know.

The problem is everyone is thinking about the short-term.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#203

Post by specialist »

mtdewcmu wrote: post #198
wissler wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think there are similarities between the nuclear power debate and the GMO debate. In both case, I think it's stupid to be fundamentally opposed to the technology/research itself. But in both case, the industry is so fucked up (lies, too close ties with control authority, ...) that I don't trust them at all." If you look around you'll find a lot more examples than these two, and you'll trace the root cause as illeg…

Has GMO ever been confirmed to have harmed anybody? Confusion between real and imagined threats could be part of the problem. Nuclear accidents will kill you, as in -- dead.

GMO is like hammering. It can be used for good or evil.

The informed opposition to GMO covers two types of modifications.

#1 Making plants more resistant to herbicides, so that more herbicides can be used.

#2 Giving plants new abilities to create their own insecticides.

Both are terrible ideas. Mostly because they're pumping the biological arms race as well as the side effects.

GMO for increased yield, durability, flavor, whatever are totally okay (depending on ones esthetics). We've been doing that for millennia thru breeding, artificial selection, and hybridization.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#204

Post by wissler »

anigbrowl wrote: post #196
wissler wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think there are similarities between the nuclear power debate and the GMO debate. In both case, I think it's stupid to be fundamentally opposed to the technology/research itself. But in both case, the industry is so fucked up (lies, too close ties with control authority, ...) that I don't trust them at all." If you look around you'll find a lot more examples than these two, and you'll trace the root cause as illeg…

What does this have to do with the government not exerting sufficient regulatory force against bad actors in the nuclear industry? After all, people who don't like being regulated frequently trot out your very complaint as an excuse for why they should not be subject to more regulation. I think you're confused.

I think you're confused.

Actually, you're just misinformed, e.g. read this:

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/priceanders...

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#205

Post by leot »

wissler wrote: post #158
jre wrote: post #16

I think there are similarities between the nuclear power debate and the GMO debate. In both case, I think it's stupid to be fundamentally opposed to the technology/research itself. But in both case, the industry is so fucked up (lies, too close ties with control authority, ...) that I don't trust them at all. It seems to me this is partially a failure of our current economic system, where the incentives for the indus…

"I think there are similarities between the nuclear power debate and the GMO debate. In both case, I think it's stupid to be fundamentally opposed to the technology/research itself. But in both case, the industry is so fucked up (lies, too close ties with control authority, ...) that I don't trust them at all." If you look around you'll find a lot more examples than these two, and you'll trace the root cause as illeg…

When those in power (in the U.S.) take as a prior that gov't can't/won't work, then they're given an excuse to not really act in the public's interest in good faith, or to try hard to design a regulatory framework that could actually function. Belief in government dysfunction becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (that conveniently most benefits those who are already most powerful, those individuals whose power can only be checked by government).

The solution to "regulatory capture" is sometimes less regulation, but at other times transparency and better regulation. This is the real world, and there aren't any silver bullets.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#206

Post by dripton »

potatolicious wrote: post #59
samatman wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of one thing, and no one will swallow it in our society: The engineers who work on nuclear plants must pledge their lives for its safety, and ritually kill themselves in the event of an incident. I'm perfectly serious, in that it's within the human experience and it would work. I also suspect our world society can't wrap its head around that kind of medieval pact, and I'm not even sure I want to live in t…

Mistakes aren't deterministic, they are largely probabilistic. While ritual suicide might make the victims of an accident feel better, they are ultimately unproductive - there are many classes of disastrous errors that have nothing to do with negligence. Not to mention also, even in incidents with a preventable cause, it is exceedingly rare for there to be a singular cause. Chernobyl, for example, was the culmination…

The engineers don't necessarily have enough power for that to work. And the current engineers on site aren't necessarily those at fault for a disaster that was caused by incorrect design or construction 30 years ago.

What I would like to see is mandatory escrow of a large percentage of profits from highly-profitable, possibly-disaster-prone industries. If you go disaster-free for 20 years you get your escrowed money with interest. If not, you lose (an appropriate amount of) it.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#207

Post by coldtea »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #76
jre wrote: post #16

I think there are similarities between the nuclear power debate and the GMO debate. In both case, I think it's stupid to be fundamentally opposed to the technology/research itself. But in both case, the industry is so fucked up (lies, too close ties with control authority, ...) that I don't trust them at all. It seems to me this is partially a failure of our current economic system, where the incentives for the indus…

Regulatory capture is a big problem. One of the more bizarre twists in the Japanese nuclear story is that a program to develop robots that could remotely work inside damaged nuclear generating stations was canceled out of fear that it would send a message that nuclear power isn't safe.

That was a government sponsored program that was government canceled in the first place. A private company, would not have even bothered with it in the first place, especially if there was no subsidy.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#208

Post by coldtea »

baddox wrote: post #178
ajscherer wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Regulatory capture is THE problem. This is difficult for me to understand. Are you suggesting that if nuclear power were completely unregulated, Tepco's behavior would've been more virtuous (as I read it, totally virtuous)? Or is the claim that regulation made the problem somewhat worse, and this margin (between how bad the problem would've been without regulation and how bad it was with regulation) is the only part…

> This is difficult for me to understand. Are you suggesting that if nuclear power were completely unregulated, Tepco's behavior would've been more virtuous (as I read it, totally virtuous)? If it were unregulated by government , then yes. It's a bit misleading to say there would be absolutely nothing regulating the industry if government wasn't.

Doesn't sound misleading. What would that regulation body be? What's less susceptible to corruption than government?

Some private body with guys placed directly from the industry? Some public body with guys voted by the people (and then regulated themselves how?)

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#209

Post by coldtea »

mtdewcmu wrote: post #198
wissler wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think there are similarities between the nuclear power debate and the GMO debate. In both case, I think it's stupid to be fundamentally opposed to the technology/research itself. But in both case, the industry is so fucked up (lies, too close ties with control authority, ...) that I don't trust them at all." If you look around you'll find a lot more examples than these two, and you'll trace the root cause as illeg…

Has GMO ever been confirmed to have harmed anybody? Confusion between real and imagined threats could be part of the problem. Nuclear accidents will kill you, as in -- dead.

>Has GMO ever been confirmed to have harmed anybody?

There are sereval of studies that show that those examined can be harmful -- but it's a whole field, one cannot speak for all of them as harmful, can only examine them one by one. The general practice is harmful to me, because profit motives and patents are involved.

I don't think just because they found out how to genetically modify plants that they also can understand the long term effects of their creations (to other plants, insects, animal life, the consumer, etc). Nor do I believe that they have the scientific rigor and patience to study those with the timeframes needed. It's more: "fuck it, let's sell these things".

Plus it's a huge industry, with trillions to be made, that dwarfs smoke -- not many research labs get the funds to examine it critically. It's like pre-eighties, when tons of smoke studies were sponsored by tobacco companies, and found "little or no evidence" of it causing cancer.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#210

Post by coldtea »

Bluestrike2 wrote: post #174
yaix wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its both cases of failing government oversight of these industries. Fukushima got worse and worse, because the company was basically doing and saying whatever they wanted (and seemingly still is) with the government just repeating it. Same goes for GMO. Its a good but potentially very dangerous technology. We should not simply allow it because a few billion USD in turnover and GDP growth are promised.

No, we should allow it because GMO represents the potential for increases in agricultural efficiency and total output that mean the difference between millions starving to death or not.

I call BS. We have enough yield to feed the planet already.

The difference between millions starving to death or not is inequality and indifference.

GMO's are mostly used to sell the same food to the same people that always had food and can pay for it, just with better profit margins.

Not to mention patents, locking the seeds etc -- something 100 times worse than software patents.

Post reply on HN