161–170 of 190 posts
I suggest you start worrying. More info here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14plume.html
i like it when scientists say "the situation is under control" after the roof was bombed off.
You should have read the article which explains why this explosion wasn't nearly as dangerous as it seemed to be.
If the US Navy is fleeing for cover 60 miles away from the reactors, the situation is SERIOUS.
The writer is not an expert on earth quakes. Making such a bold claim that nothing can go wrong is plainly false. Just because they are an expert in one area, does not mean they are an expert in all areas. There are already a number of people being treated for radiation poisoning. They have already admitted that there have been radiation releases above safe levels. I feel sorry for the engineers working so hard to fi…
I agree. Let's replace all ~40-year-old reactors (like the ones breaking down in Japan) with modern, fail-safe nuclear designs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with solar is that they require large amounts of resources to produce but also that they also produce the wrong type of power. To give you an example, think of a way to run a large aluminium smelter overnight using just solar cells. There isn't any sun shining, so you arn't getting any power in. You need to somehow store enough energy to run the plant overnight, and do it in a form that can actually be pr…
> Wrong type of power. I don't think you explained this. It seems as though you're just arguing about the cost of batteries, not a certain "type" of power. (what types of power are there, anyways? I only know of one: electricity. There are many different ways to generate it though..)
I suppose that my fears for this particular situation are mostly allayed. But I think that's only the tip of the iceberg. In the face of the world's need for energy, nuclear power is the only viable option that is available today. I wonder how much this incident is going to weigh against using that option? The power plants in operation today use technology that's quite obsolete. The design of the older plants is an h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Cs-137 has a half life of 30 years or something. It certainly does not disappear quickly. Most of the Chernobyl contamination in Sweden was from Cesium, and that made berries and reindeer (which eat lichens) unsafe to eat for many years, if not decades.
Yeah, 30 years. There was a lot of background radiation from Cs-137 from all the old nuclear testing that's disappearing now.
There are several factual errors (so much I don't know where to start), just check the press releases from TEPCO, the public statements of the Japanese Government and other public available information (e.g. http://www2.jnes.go.jp/atom-db/en/trouble/individ/power/j/j2... )
The author does not know what he is talking about, his phD. won't help him there. (Everybody clear in their mind should wonder why smb. would start a piece with "phD. Scientist" I'm working in academia and I never mentioned my degree in any post here or elsewhere, because I want that my arguments convince and not my degree) It's the first blog-post of smb. who's linking just to nuclear energy lobbyist pages (telling you to prefer them over "standard media") and everybody starts up-voting the piece and down-voting negative and critical comments?
I thought hacker news was better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for the previous poster, but I started 'sipping the nuclear kool-aid' once I took a nuclear physics class. Of course, the class was taught over cable TV by fox news anchors funded by both GE, the DNC and the RNC. That's pretty much how the US got to be a superpower and stuff.
> I can't speak for the previous poster, but I started 'sipping the nuclear kool-aid' once I took a nuclear physics class. Same here. And I think I know why: understanding the risks puts you in control, to some degree. People are highly averse to risks they cannot control. I mean, the news is a joke. They talk about "radiation" but appear to have no idea how it's even measured. The news anchors don't seem to know wha…
I'm shocked, how can such a lobbyist piece be high-rated at Hacker News. I though the community would be more critical towards news in general. There are several factual errors (so much I don't know where to start), just check the press releases from TEPCO, the public statements of the Japanese Government and other public available information (e.g. http://www2.jnes.go.jp/atom-db/en/trouble/individ/power/j/j2... ) Th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
solar and wind are too expensive for wide scale deployments. No, they aren't. And the only reason nuclear is considered "cheap" is that the costs of accidents and waste disposal are methodically underestimated. Oh, and another thing: Uranium fuel is a quite limited resource as well...
We have 50 years of petroleum left and maybe 100-200 of coal. Compare that to centuries of Uranium, Plutonium and other radioactive minerals. Also, emissions are a big deal, too. Nuclear waste is contained and far less dangerous (when kept properly) than fossile fuel emissions.
Nuclear waste is contained and far less dangerous (when kept properly) than fossile fuel emissions.
I think you might be making the opposite point to what you intend.
You compare the worst case of safety & long term consequences for oil/coal (ie, the current situation), with the best case ("when kept properly") for nuclear power.
A better comparison would be to compare the safety coal/oil power after spending the money required to keep nuclear waste safe on cleaning coal/oil emissions and improving mining safety, or else to compare the worst case in each scenario.
The worst case for coal/oil is a few thousand dead (from mining) a year, and bad climate damage. The worst case for nuclear is a few million dead and regional environmental catastrophe. It's fair to have a discussion about the probability any disaster happening, but to preclude the possibility undermines your argument.
To me, nuclear proponents making the case the nuclear is safe if everything goes well sound a lot like the NASA administrators who Feynman criticized in the challenger disaster report for not understanding risk.