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

Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

theage.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 188 posts

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#161

Post by nitrogen »

fhd2 wrote: post #140
qwertyboy wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, fossil fuel power plants release more radioactive waste than nuclear ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Comparing_radioac... Nuclear power really is a darn good solution to our energy problems, and is more feasible and entirely more humane than using less energy. Our growing energy demands are not just a result of us being spoiled, they are a direct result of our need to sustain more and more…

> Actually, fossil fuel power plants release more radioactive waste than nuclear ones. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Comparing_radioac... . That surprised me, but I didn't mean to say that fossil fuel power plants are a great alternative. > Progress has created a lot of problems, but we can't really slow down in any significant way. Our only hope is to use our momentum to find solutions. I'm not saying…

For instance, does 50% of the population have to commute in a big car every day?

If the cost of housing near cities is greater than the cost of transportation, then yes.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#162

Post by nitrogen »

VLM wrote: post #87
JanezStupar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar and wind are ways off replacing nuclear and fossil fuels. There is no way we could switch to solar/wind without moving to the 1800's. There are many technological and economic issues with large scale solar/wind. We need to build better grids, we need storage for when sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow... Realistically we are at least 20 years from the point where renewables could overcome fossil. And that…

"There is no way we could switch to solar/wind without moving to the 1800's." That is false in that the system currently cannot do it because we've promised 100% uptime and all the users have designed around perhaps 99% uptime. Lower uptime on the coasts, much higher in civilized areas (Dang near 100% by the great lakes, for example, where interestingly AC power has been much more reliable than UPS/generator transfer…

Why isn't every installed UPS legally or contractually required to be a smart grid controllable grid tie inverter on demand?

Probably because that would be really freaking expensive. Why go to all the expensive failure-prone trouble of making it easier to interrupt people's work and lives, instead of taking the cheaper, easier route of building reliable base load power generation? That's just another case of making the public bear the costs of a centralized benefit, just like fossil fuels' externalized costs.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#163

Post by philjohn »

scheeko wrote: post #71
mixmax wrote: post #45

I have a personal theory, that I haven't really been able to confirm or deny. Here it is. After Hiroshima and during the cold war nuclear energy was associated with death and destruction. Hiroshima for obvious reasons, and the cold war because the population of the western world was constantly reminded how The Soviet Union had thousands of missiles with nuclear bombs pointing at us, ready to go. Western governments u…

It's likely more than that. Chernobyl had a great impact on people's idea of nuclear. Also its damage, when occurring, is done in a spectacular way by something invisible. Radiation poisoning is dramatic, horrific and you can't see, smell or feel. That scares the living hell out of most people and the fact that is statistically unlikely becomes irrelevant as soon as it becomes an irrational fear. There are things tha…

Add sex to the list - HPV is sexually transmitted and is thought to cause a scary percentage of certain cancers.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#164

Post by Xylakant »

JanezStupar wrote: post #159
Xylakant wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quote from the article "The problem may intensify with the approaching winter." and "The coming winter can be critical,". The article dates vom october 2012 and the winter is over, no large-scale blackout in europe so far. Renewable energies require updates to the network infrastructure - granted - but should that be a reason not to push technology and try to improve?

Why would Poland need to update their infrastructure so that Germany can force their excess production upon them. Do you even understand what you are saying here?

You're reading something I'm not saying. Germany is investing billions in its own networks to handle those issues, for example into 6 new large scale distribution lines from north to south. So yes, we want to change what energy we're using but we're paying the cost. And then, it's not like germany isn't the largest net-payer in the European Union. Certainly a small part of those subsidies could be invested in energy networks in need of technological updates - currently we're already paying to bring old east-block nuclear plants to more modern safety levels, so a couple of cables shouldn't be too much of a big deal.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#165

Post by Xylakant »

Symmetry wrote: post #98
elorant wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about nuclear waste though? You end up with some tons of radioactive material which you have to store in high-security underground facilities with the hope that in some time in the future humanity will find a way to dispose it in a safer way.

Well, the really radioactive parts of the waste will decay after a fairly short number of years. With regards to the less radioactive, slower decaying part I'm not sure why we worry about it so much more than naturally occurring radioactive substances. There are streams in Colorado that are measurably radioactive because they interact with natural Uranium deposits but the levels are low enough to not pose a real publ…

Because for example plutonium has that nasty tendency to go boom once you amass a kilo or so, so safe storage is required to keep all lunatics at bay. It's also a very potent poison. It's also not found in natural deposits.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#166

Post by jacquesm »

Xylakant wrote: post #164
JanezStupar wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Poland need to update their infrastructure so that Germany can force their excess production upon them. Do you even understand what you are saying here?

You're reading something I'm not saying. Germany is investing billions in its own networks to handle those issues, for example into 6 new large scale distribution lines from north to south. So yes, we want to change what energy we're using but we're paying the cost. And then, it's not like germany isn't the largest net-payer in the European Union. Certainly a small part of those subsidies could be invested in energy…

You are significantly underestimating the cost of high voltage transmission infrastructure.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#167

Post by jsmeaton »

Udo wrote: post #83
jsmeaton wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the article mentions the facts and scientific judgements: > the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has drawn on 80 scientists from 18 countries to produce a draft report that concludes: "Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among…

> What you've done is read (or not) How about we assume that I've read the article before commenting on it, and while we're at it, how about doing away with the vitriol even when you don't like someone or their opinion? > decided that there must be something missing, and bemoaned the fact that people are applauding nuclear energy. I have indeed, for myself, decided there is something missing and I put my doubts out t…

> and while we're at it, how about doing away with the vitriol even when you don't like someone or their opinion

Fair enough. Sorry for the way I wrote what I wrote.

What I was trying to convey is that calling the article out for being misleading, because we can't yet know, goes against what the stated research determined. Admonishing commenters for cheering on nuclear power just because you don't think the research is complete seems suspect.

I don't think anyone is saying "but there was no damage done, yay for a perfect energy source". What they're saying is "it's the best we've got and scare campaigns against nuclear power are ridiculous - thankfully someone has exposed them".

What happened was terrible. But tearing down the nuclear power plants across the globe is not the correct reaction.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#168

Post by peterpathname »

ori_b wrote: post #134
peterpathname wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to me, a worst case scenario is that one or more of the nutcases who leapfrog a weapons program off the back of the materials, technologies, facilities and expertise developed thru their power program, decides to test a bomb. or shake it angrily. or drop it. Can anyone here remember going to war because we though the other crazy guy -might- have a coal bomb? there's more nuclear actors than ever before, and it only t…

Thankfully, the designs that can be used to produce weapons grade material are also the ones that are the least safe. If people opt for the old designs, it will be obvious what their intentions are.

the concern is not just about a single power reactor being misused to produce bomb fuel, but about the picewise contribution a nuclear power program makes to the nation's capacity to achieve their weapons ambitions

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#169

Post by peterpathname »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #80
Udo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average, but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths. But, yes, nuclear disasters are potentially much worse if things go wrong. [ http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-... ] > Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is better: that…

Um, Fukoshima went very, very wrong, and there were Zero deaths/sickness. That was the point of the article. And these were the worst reactors currently in service. That leaves us with safer, more productive reactors. The future holds even safer reactors. This seems like a good trajectory for everybody.

I disagree with 'zero' deaths. the UNSCEAR report does not say zero deaths. it says that the increased cancer deaths due to the reactor disaster over the coming decadrs will not be statistically discernable. That's not zero deaths.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#170

Post by peterpathname »

mpyne wrote: post #126
justatdotin wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think another parameter is the intergenerational teratogenic impacts: Radiation fades your genes.

Good thing no life forms are exposed to radiation such as UV, cosmic rays, or naturally-occuring radioactive elements such as Carbon-14, Potassium-40, or Uranium then, we'd be screwed after only a few generations! Oh, wait...

what's your point? people do get old and sick. the fact that radiation exists naturally in the environment doesn't mean its good for you, and doesnt mean that more won't pose an increased health hazard
Post reply on HN