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

231–240 of 265 posts

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

#231

Post by prewett »

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'm not convinced that nuclear power is safe, regulators or no. Accidents, mistakes, unforeseen problems, sabotage all will happen, and when it does, it makes an area of land potentially uninhabitable for many years. A system where the failure mode is long-term uninhabitability is not what I call safe.

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

#232

Post by nl »

wissler wrote: post #229
nl wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

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'm not ignoring it - I thought you meant that the requirement for private insurance would be a major part of it. I replied how that wouldn't work.

What exactly do you mean by "regulation" beyond the (non-workable) private insurance idea?

To be clear - my idea of regulation in this case is an independent government body with the sole purpose of being responsible for safety oversight. This means approval for blueprints, locations and operational procedures etc, as well as continuous operational monitoring, the ability to shut down the plant and to impose penalties of fines and jail time (subject to oversight of the court system course).

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.

Yes, I believe that government has a right to make laws regarding the use of drugs. No, I don't think they should send in a SWAT team if someone smokes a joint (And no, that isn't a contradiction as the many places that do have drug laws but don't use SWAT teams to enforce them shows). I do not have strong opinions for or against cannabis prohibition. I don't want to derail this into a drug law discussion though.

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

#233

Post by wissler »

nl wrote: post #232
wissler wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

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'm not ignoring it - I thought you meant that the requirement for private insurance would be a major part of it. I replied how that wouldn't work. What exactly do you mean by "regulation" beyond the (non-workable) private insurance…

Yes, I believe that government has a right to make laws regarding the use of drugs.

This is the critical issue.

By what right? Where does an institution of mere men get the prerogative to interfere with other men deciding to consume certain types/arrangements of matter?

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

#235

Post by ekianjo »

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…

Mouhaha. Ridiculous comment (worth killing yourself for, following your silly logic). Stuff happens. Science is built on the mistakes of the past. If you take this approach we will end up never building anything new and stay stuck in technology.

So, we shouldnt build driverless cars unless some engineer is ready to kill himself over it? Seriously, stop the drugs.

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

#236

Post by zurn »

dspeyer wrote: post #151
veidr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, my weighting factors are: 1. Number of people who died, or will die, weighted by how they die -- painful slow death by internal organ cancers being pretty far up there on my chart. 2. Number of people who have traumatic long term health episodes, like cancer, that degrade their quality of life. Even if it isn't until much later. 3. Number of people who have to leave long-established hometown territory and…

> Number of people who died Zero > Number of children who get thyroid cancer Forty so far. These are just what I could find quickly. Couldn't quickly find anything on Deepwater Horizon.

>> Number of children who get thyroid cancer

> Forty so far.

Let's hope they hit the ~100% survival rate quoted for early stage thyroid cancer:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/thyroidcancer/detailedguide/thy...

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

#237

Post by nl »

wissler wrote: post #233
nl wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm not ignoring it - I thought you meant that the requirement for private insurance would be a major part of it. I replied how that wouldn't work. What exactly do you mean by "regulation" beyond the (non-workable) private insurance…

Yes, I believe that government has a right to make laws regarding the use of drugs. This is the critical issue. By what right? Where does an institution of mere men get the prerogative to interfere with other men deciding to consume certain types/arrangements of matter?

By what right?

By the right of a society to make rules that govern those within it.

I realize from previous experience that it's likely you think this is an illegitimate right. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that this is how societies have functioned throughout human history.

Edit: I believe this is a distraction from the nuclear regulation debate - which I note you have chosen to ignore.

I agree that, yes, there is a fair debate to be had about the legitimacy of laws deciding what someone can do to their own body. However, there is a fair amount of historical evidence that indicates it has been a long accepted right (eg, laws against drunkenness). As I said previously I don't have a strong opinion either way as to if these should apply to private use of cannabis.

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

#238

Post by brazzy »

DennisP wrote: post #186
WalterBright wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be easier to put the generators in bunkers and harden them. Besides, it was pretty clear to me reading the sequence of events at Fukushima that there was entirely too little thought given to backup decoupling - there was too much of a zipper effect of one failure leading to another. I'm not a lay person on this - I worked for 3 years on airliner designs, and much of that is finding ways to deal with failure…

Bear in mind that these reactors were built in the 1970s. Modern designs are a lot better, and some shut down by themselves upon loss of power, with no need for active measures at all. Even some reactors built in the 1980s got through the events at Fukushima just fine.

The problem was not in shutting down the chain reaction - that worked just fine. The problem was in dealing with fuel rods that were still, due to decay processes that nothing in the universe can stop, producing massive amounts of heat that, without active cooling, would melt them and re-start the chain reaction.

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

#239

Post by noiv »

berntb wrote: post #61
veidr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, well, it's easy to make bets on events that will still be playing out hundreds of years after we are all dead, isn't it. Radioactive contamination of the food supply, the oceans, and tens of thousands of people exiled from their hometown for the rest of their lives. 17 injured and 11 dead rig workers is easily comprehended and instant. Doesn't really mean that disaster was worse, though. Just easier to contempl…

>>hundreds of years after we are all dead >>Radioactive contamination of [...] the oceans Sigh... bad scare mongering. How many percent has the background radiation in the Pacific ocean increased by Fukushima? (Hint: radioactive water is very, very diluted after much less than one century. :-) )

Sure, once it's perfectly stirred every glass of water from the ocean contains radiating Fukushima atoms. You just have to make sure none of your cells is currently on the edge to switch to cancer mode.

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

#240

Post by moocowduckquack »

samatman wrote: post #95
ghostDancer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it will be more effective if you put the politicians in power or the owners to live next to them, i can assure you there will be no lack of money for building and maintenance of the nuclear plants.

Owners? Oh no. If I'm taking a pledge to kill myself over a pile of thorium, the profit from that energy belongs to me and mine. We are heroes of society. There are no owners. Our world is not even vaguely ready for any of this.

That is probably quite lucky then. I'd hate to imagine what might happen if it was.
Post reply on HN