The Panic Over Fukushima • Hacker News Board

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#11

Post by travisp » Sat, Aug 18, 2012, 6:32 PM UTC

radu_floricica wrote: post #7

> Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test. He made a good argument that new cancer cases are statistically few, but I can't see what test Fukushima passed. As far as I know th…

I think the idea was that even if it was an engineering failure, it turned out not to be so dangerous. In a sense, it passed the tests of "What if things go wrong? What if the engineering wasn't so good? What if there's human error? What if events happen that weren't initially predicted?"

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#12

Post by tjoff » Sat, Aug 18, 2012, 6:35 PM UTC

radu_floricica wrote: post #7

> Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test. He made a good argument that new cancer cases are statistically few, but I can't see what test Fukushima passed. As far as I know th…

They were not designed to be able to resist an earthquake of that magnitude so I fail to see how it can be an failure from an engineering perspective (the fact that most plants handled it fine should if anything suggest that, from an engineering perspective, it was a success).

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#13

Post by jbuzbee » Sat, Aug 18, 2012, 6:36 PM UTC

As an experiment, I volunteer to expose myself, my wife and my children to a yearly dose of radiation that is three times the maximum safe-level recommended by The International Commission on Radiological Protection. i.e. we happily live in the Denver area ;-)

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#14

Post by mbateman » Sat, Aug 18, 2012, 6:40 PM UTC

radu_floricica wrote: post #8

mbateman wrote: post #6

Maybe I was being ridiculously optimistic, but ~200 projected additional cases of cancer seems pretty bad.

You really have to put things in context, otherwise you get into the "think of the children" fallacy, where everything is worth the effort if it saves one life. We die of three causes: cancer, heart problems and strokes. Well over 30% die of cancer. So this means some of those 200 will die of cancer before they die of something else (some of them will recover and live to die from heart attack later). This makes the n…

I'm certainly not trying to imply any policy prescriptions. I'm strongly in favor of nuclear power. But if there's risk we should know what it is so it can be distributed/compensated for.

I'm not saying it's not worth the cost (or even trying to discuss things in those terms), but I'm not convinced this outcome is insignificant. If this article is right, many of these people will die N years sooner than they would have otherwise. How high does N have to be before it gets worth discussing?

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#15

Post by tsotha » Sat, Aug 18, 2012, 6:40 PM UTC

dmoy wrote: post #2

I don't know of any authoritative resources on radiation->cancer risk, can anyone provide more information? The article starts out with a cool premise but I have a hard time swallowing the linear rem->%chance relationship described here "If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance)"

The LNT model is clearly wrong, but people like numbers even if they're wrong, which is why you see it used in planning and media reports. There are probably fewer cancer cases than LNT would predict, but beyond that we simply don't know.

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#16

Post by gwern » Sat, Aug 18, 2012, 6:51 PM UTC

mbateman wrote: post #6

Maybe I was being ridiculously optimistic, but ~200 projected additional cases of cancer seems pretty bad.

It is pretty bad, but people have seriously argued that the evacuation itself killed more people: Japan (like any other highly populated First World country!) is stuffed full of old or sick people, and when you force them to evacuate quickly and be separated from all their stuff, their doctors and medical records, their local pharmacies, and subject them to a ton of stress in every respect - well, quite a few people are going to kick the bucket.

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#17

Post by tsotha » Sat, Aug 18, 2012, 6:52 PM UTC

radu_floricica wrote: post #7

> Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test. He made a good argument that new cancer cases are statistically few, but I can't see what test Fukushima passed. As far as I know th…

The damage that actually occurred is not that serious. The oceans are large, and eventually the authorities will pick out what's left of the fuel rods and store it safely. This is what was done at Three Mile Island.

But the reality is they only very narrowly avoided a catastrophe that would have been orders of magnitude worse, since they were only able to regain control of the site by putting people there to add water. That was mostly luck.

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#18

Post by altarelli » Sat, Aug 18, 2012, 6:53 PM UTC

mbateman wrote: post #14

radu_floricica wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really have to put things in context, otherwise you get into the "think of the children" fallacy, where everything is worth the effort if it saves one life. We die of three causes: cancer, heart problems and strokes. Well over 30% die of cancer. So this means some of those 200 will die of cancer before they die of something else (some of them will recover and live to die from heart attack later). This makes the n…

I'm certainly not trying to imply any policy prescriptions. I'm strongly in favor of nuclear power. But if there's risk we should know what it is so it can be distributed/compensated for. I'm not saying it's not worth the cost (or even trying to discuss things in those terms), but I'm not convinced this outcome is insignificant. If this article is right, many of these people will die N years sooner than they would ha…

The risk for the GE MkI was (is) well known, but physicist-socipath Seaborg chose to hand out the operating license:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4401744

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#19

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 18, 2012, 6:56 PM UTC

tjoff wrote: post #12

radu_floricica wrote: post #7

> Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test. He made a good argument that new cancer cases are statistically few, but I can't see what test Fukushima passed. As far as I know th…

They were not designed to be able to resist an earthquake of that magnitude so I fail to see how it can be an failure from an engineering perspective (the fact that most plants handled it fine should if anything suggest that, from an engineering perspective, it was a success).

[deleted]

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#20

Post by justincormack » Sat, Aug 18, 2012, 6:57 PM UTC

The opposition into Japan is not about the exact number of cancers or deaths. It is about trust. To quote the official report [1]:

...the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response.

How could such an accident occur in Japan, a nation that takes such great pride in its global reputation for excellence in engineering and technology? This Commission believes the Japanese people – and the global community – deserve a full, honest and transparent answer to this question.

Our report catalogues a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11. And it examines serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government.

For all the extensive detail it provides, what this report cannot fully convey – especially to a global audience – is the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster. What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.”

Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity.

(the rest is worth reading too)

If your government and industry had failed you like that would you trust them to continue with nuclear power without fixing the underlying problems?

[1] http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf