Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe' • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by nl » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 12:58 AM UTC

wissler wrote: post #204

anigbrowl wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

For those who didn't click the link:

This is a 1984 argument from the Cato institute that an act limiting liability to nuclear power facilities should not be renewed.

I think wissler is implying that this shows that the government does "not exert[ing] sufficient regulatory force against bad actors in the nuclear industry"

I think many non-libertarians would agree with that analysis, but would add that the existence of bad regulation does not invalidate the idea that regulation is appropriate.

To be clear: most non-libertarians are less inclined to agree with the idea that this use of government force is illegitimate.

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

#222

Post by Houshalter » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 1:03 AM UTC

stonemetal wrote: post #98

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…

Nuclear power plants are too big to be built and run by one person. While I might be willing to make the pledge for my own work why should I die because the knucklehead in the next cube makes a mistake, or an operator does something stupid, or a plane crashes into the reactor, or terrorist blow up the plant? There are just too many what ifs that are not within any single person's control.

It doesn't matter, everyone would have a strong incentive to not screw up and to prevent everyone else from also not screwing up.

So what if it's not your fault? I'm not entirely sure this is a good idea, but it might increase safety just a little. A tiny probability that a lot of people won't die is a net benefit.

And if an incident did happen, a few extra innocent people dying is barely anything to worry about. Especially if it helps at preventing it from happening at all.

I don't think it will ever happen, but I think it's a good idea.

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

#223

Post by nl » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 1:04 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #210

Bluestrike2 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have enough yield to feed the planet already.

"We" in this case is the US (perhaps combined with the Ukraine, Australia & a few other large grain providers).

But that means that much of the worlds population has to rely on food supplies grown elsewhere.

Increasing drought resistance in grain crops could allow African countries to feed themselves, which could decrease political tensions over water supplies.

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

#224

Post by mtdewcmu » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 1:20 AM UTC

specialist wrote: post #203

mtdewcmu wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, fl…

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

The notion that the genes spliced into crops could spark an evolutionary feedback loop that spirals out of control -- the evidence doesn't indicate any great cause for alarm, afaik. And the toxic side effects are unlikely to be of greater concern than from chemicals made in labs. I think the amount of public alarm about GMO is way out of proportion to the actual risk. This technology holds the promise of making agriculture less damaging and more efficient. I think the fixation on this issue is related to traits that make it a good a viral meme, and have nothing to do with rational risk-assessment.

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

#225

Post by mtdewcmu » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 1:25 AM UTC

sesqu wrote: post #216

mtdewcmu wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Nuclear accidents will kill you, as in -- dead. They have been markedly less successful at that than other industrial accidents. edit : Wikipedia suggests a total of about 9250 accidental deaths worldwide over the past 56 years related to nuclear research, power, weapons and therapy, of which some 126 died of radiation while the rest died from explosions and cancer (estimates vary; except for the 9000 deaths attrib…

This probably has a lot to do with the high level of vigilance that nuclear power receives, notwithstanding the occasional failure.

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

#226

Post by wissler » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 1:40 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #221

wissler wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confused. Actually, you're just misinformed, e.g. read this: http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/priceanders...

For those who didn't click the link: This is a 1984 argument from the Cato institute that an act limiting liability to nuclear power facilities should not be renewed. I think wissler is implying that this shows that the government does "not exert[ing] sufficient regulatory force against bad actors in the nuclear industry" I think many non-libertarians would agree with that analysis, but would add that the existence o…

Whether most agree or disagree is irrelevant. It is immoral to attack someone who has not attacked or threatened you. It is likewise immoral to advocate attacking innocents. Take that how you will.

Nuclear power is a special case since it arguably represents a threat, even libertarians would argue that it should be "regulated", in the sense of being required to prove that it's safe. Part of proving safety is by being able to obtain private insurance from a reputable insurer, which is precisely contrary to the non-libertarian solution of just having the government say "just trust us, the nuclear power is fine, and besides, it helps us build nuclear weapons."

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

#227

Post by angersock » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 2:56 AM UTC

samatman wrote: post #50

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 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…

Yes, by all means, let's kill off the only people in a unique position to learn from their mistakes and make safer reactors!

Your idea is the latest in a long list of stupid, short-sighted, and ignorant semi-articulated fears.

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

#228

Post by nl » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 3:03 AM UTC

wissler wrote: post #226

nl wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who didn't click the link: This is a 1984 argument from the Cato institute that an act limiting liability to nuclear power facilities should not be renewed. I think wissler is implying that this shows that the government does "not exert[ing] sufficient regulatory force against bad actors in the nuclear industry" I think many non-libertarians would agree with that analysis, but would add that the existence o…

Whether most agree or disagree is irrelevant. It is immoral to attack someone who has not attacked or threatened you. It is likewise immoral to advocate attacking innocents. Take that how you will. Nuclear power is a special case since it arguably represents a threat, even libertarians would argue that it should be "regulated", in the sense of being required to prove that it's safe. Part of proving safety is by being…

It is immoral to attack someone who has not attacked or threatened you. It is likewise immoral to advocate attacking innocents. Take that how you will.

I reject the implication that government regulation is an attack of any kind. I do not agree that the fact a government can enforce its power is an attack, nor do I believe it is immoral.

I do not agree that government regulation is immoral.

As a specific example, I believe in the right of government to tax and their ability to enforce that.

I do not agree that private insurance is a solution for things like nuclear power, even in a "perfect world" theoretical sense. A nuclear disaster is a "black swan" event, and many people/companies would be quite happy to ignore the possibility of disaster and take the insurance premiums while things are going well.

If a company can make 50 years of "free" profits from insuring a nuclear plant, and then go bankrupt in the 50th year when they can't pay out the coverage then all that means is that investors have to make sure to safeguard their dividends/profits over the 49 preceding years.

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

#229

Post by wissler » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 3:19 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #228

wissler wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether most agree or disagree is irrelevant. It is immoral to attack someone who has not attacked or threatened you. It is likewise immoral to advocate attacking innocents. Take that how you will. Nuclear power is a special case since it arguably represents a threat, even libertarians would argue that it should be "regulated", in the sense of being required to prove that it's safe. Part of proving safety is by being…

It is immoral to attack someone who has not attacked or threatened you. It is likewise immoral to advocate attacking innocents. Take that how you will. I reject the implication that government regulation is an attack of any kind. I do not agree that the fact a government can enforce its power is an attack, nor do I believe it is immoral. I do not agree that government regulation is immoral. As a specific example, I b…

I explicitly stated that a libertarian case could be made for regulating nuclear power, on the grounds that it constitutes a threat. Is there a reason you're choosing to ignore that fact?

"I reject the implication that government regulation is an attack of any kind."

It critically depends on the meaning of "regulation". If by "regulation" we mean "prove to us that your nuclear power is safe", then as I said, there can be a moral case for that, given the threat of meltdown. But if you mean "don't smoke that plant that's been growing on Earth for millions of years, and we'll send in a SWAT team if you disobey", then that kind of regulation is a crime against humanity.

So, you need to be clear here. Bandying about the term "regulation" is just not good enough.

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

#230

Post by pdonis » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 3:33 AM UTC

redblacktree wrote: post #219

lenkite wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Coal is much less dangerous for those who live near the power plant I don't believe so. Toxicity and Emissions of a coal-fire power plant does severely affect those in the neighborhood. Studies show that radiation dose is comparable. As and Se are found to have higher concentrations in soil samples. http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/3/169

Yes, but the coal plant won't suffer a catastrophic failure. It has negative effects, sure, but they're diffuse, not acute, like a nuclear meltdown is.

It has negative effects, sure, but they're diffuse, not acute, like a nuclear meltdown is.

So killing or having adverse health effects on far more people is OK, as long as the effects are diffuse? I'm not following the logic here. The number of people affected by Fukushima, even on the worst-case estimates, is less than the number of people affected in a year by the various aspects of coal plants that posters here have mentioned.