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

Fukushima

podniesinski.pl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 227 posts

Re: Fukushima

#41

Post by InclinedPlane »

ggreer wrote: post #17

I found the pictures fascinating, but the accompanying text marred my enjoyment. Considering the circumstances of the Fukushima disaster, the anti-nuclear sentiment really irked me. The Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami killed close to 20,000 people. The author completely ignored those victims. Instead, he focused on Fukushima, which will cause around 150 deaths from cancers. For every tragedy created by Fukushima, there a…

In ten years there will still be thinkpieces and photo essays about the disaster of fukushima while the tianjin disaster will end up as a footnote. Despite one being clearly an exclusively human caused disaster and causing a much vaster loss of life.

But fire and explosions we are much more familiar, even comfortable, with as causes of death and injury than creepy, invisible, insidious radiation.

Re: Fukushima

#43

Post by InclinedPlane »

facepalm wrote: post #20
gambiting wrote: post #13

As much of a tragedy this was, this is still nothing compared to the damage coal is doing to our society. I live in a coal mining town that also has a coal-fueled power and heating plant - the number of people who suffer in some way due to this is also huge. People get lung disease due to coal dust. In winter, everything is literally covered in soot - snow is blackish, with dark dots on everything. Pretty much every…

You assume that coal is the only alternative to nuclear power (there are not only other energy sources, but also the option to use less energy), and that there is no way to use coal in a cleaner way. I leave the judgement up to you, just wanted to point out some confirmation bias in your convictions.

The point you are missing is that these articles create a bias against nuclear power, but by rights there should be a deluge of articles documenting the ongoing tragedy of using coal.

But there are not.

And the result is that people have developed a fear of nuclear power while having an undeveloped fear of coal power. Coal is not the only alternative to nuclear, certainly, but coal has absolutely replaced some nuclear power around the world. And that's a tragedy because it represents people taking the wrong lessons to heart, being motivated by fear of the unknown, and making choices that lead to more tragedy and death, not less.

Re: Fukushima

#44

Post by inatreecrown »

DangerousPie wrote: post #38
inatreecrown wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get the facts straight: Fukushima is human failure. In the accident the neccecary cooling could not be supplied. As a result, people will die of cancer from the radiation. The tsunami is not human failure, and to say that living by the sea is human failure is another discussion completely.

I disagree. You seem to suggest that the fact that Fukushima was not adequately prepared for this tsunami was human failure, presumably because they should have expected such a tsunami to occur. If this is the case, then you can just as well argue that it was human failure that the towns in the affected areas flooded because of the tsunami. After all, if they expected such a tsunami to occur they could/should have bu…

Do you prefer to live by the sea or by the nuclear plant?

Re: Fukushima

#45

Post by Trombone12 »

simoncion wrote: post #24
facepalm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are just creating straw mean to support your own belief. Comparing to other causes of death is hardly relevant. It's only relevant if you weigh two options against each other. So comparing coal to nuclear is kind of valid, except that coal is not the only alternative to nuclear power. Also, if you really want to nitpick, then you'd also have to count the lives that could have been saved with the money that now go…

While it is true that coal is not the only non-nuclear power generation mechanism, it is -by far- the most common in the US. It is also true that > When you hit a nuclear plant with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded, then immediately follow that with a twenty foot high tsunami, and then it explodes, it still kills fewer people than an average coal plant does every single year when everything goes perfectly.…

Coal is the most common in the US and honestly you should have stopped relying on it several decades ago.

But of course, you got the nukes so you needn't bother with paying for your share of the climate change damages.

Re: Fukushima

#46

Post by wisty »

ggreer wrote: post #17

I found the pictures fascinating, but the accompanying text marred my enjoyment. Considering the circumstances of the Fukushima disaster, the anti-nuclear sentiment really irked me. The Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami killed close to 20,000 people. The author completely ignored those victims. Instead, he focused on Fukushima, which will cause around 150 deaths from cancers. For every tragedy created by Fukushima, there a…

IIRC, it's a legacy of the cold war.

The game theory strategists realised that any use of nuclear weapons would either escalate, or end up in a massive defeat. You can start with a tactical nuke wiping out troops, it will escalate to larger nukes wiping out ships, and eventually you're dropping very large nukes on population centers.

Mutually Assured Destruction was the only solution. (Or peace, but let's be realistic).

The Russians may have gotten away with MAD, without any need for propaganda, but the US is a democracy. To convince the population that MAD was acceptable, they had to create a situation in which any use of nuclear weapons such a horrible crime that it warranted the complete obliteration of the country that dealt the first blow.

In order to make nuclear war (even limited, tactical use) a horrible crime, they made a very big deal out of the effects. (Yes, it's not nice to wipe out battleships and troop formations, but not unprecedented in a war). Which meant they emphasised how bad radiation and fallout can be.

Also, radiation is just naturally a bit spooky, as are many carcinogens (especially ones you don't choose to expose yourself to). The fact that they might kill you 30 years after the event doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

Re: Fukushima

#47

Post by facepalm »

pdkl95 wrote: post #36
facepalm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume that coal is the only alternative to nuclear power (there are not only other energy sources, but also the option to use less energy), and that there is no way to use coal in a cleaner way. I leave the judgement up to you, just wanted to point out some confirmation bias in your convictions.

> the option to use less energy Do you wash your clothes by hand, with water heated from solar? No? Then why are you suggesting that most of the women in the world should continue spending their lives doing such menial activity? This idea that we need to use less energy is one of the most short-sighted examples of western cultural privilege that I've ever seen. The amount of energy the average person has available to…

Most energy is used for heating, transport, and so on. Your washing machine is not under threat.

And I did not suggest any of the things you say. It's all in your head, which went on a rampage triggered by the words "save energy".

All I said it is an option. I didn't say you have to take it.

Re: Fukushima

#48

Post by facepalm »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #28
facepalm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume that coal is the only alternative to nuclear power (there are not only other energy sources, but also the option to use less energy), and that there is no way to use coal in a cleaner way. I leave the judgement up to you, just wanted to point out some confirmation bias in your convictions.

> You assume that coal is the only alternative to nuclear power (there are not only other energy sources, but also the option to use less energy), and that there is no way to use coal in a cleaner way. I suppose the GP is implicitly taking into the account following facts: - there are no other energy sources that are a) green, and b) can scale up fast enough to replace fossil fuels for base load; - we're running out…

Of course there is the option to use less energy. That's just silly. If you are an American, go to any other country to learn how to get by with less energy (ie smaller houses that require less heating, smaller cars that use less fuel, less commuting to begin with, smaller fridges,...).

Re: Fukushima

#49

Post by brc »

ggreer wrote: post #17

I found the pictures fascinating, but the accompanying text marred my enjoyment. Considering the circumstances of the Fukushima disaster, the anti-nuclear sentiment really irked me. The Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami killed close to 20,000 people. The author completely ignored those victims. Instead, he focused on Fukushima, which will cause around 150 deaths from cancers. For every tragedy created by Fukushima, there a…

And that's before you compare death/injury per Mw produced.

On that measure Solar power is more dangerous than nuclear given how many people die falling off roofs while installing or maintaining solar panels.

Re: Fukushima

#50

Post by etangent »

wisty wrote: post #46
ggreer wrote: post #17

I found the pictures fascinating, but the accompanying text marred my enjoyment. Considering the circumstances of the Fukushima disaster, the anti-nuclear sentiment really irked me. The Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami killed close to 20,000 people. The author completely ignored those victims. Instead, he focused on Fukushima, which will cause around 150 deaths from cancers. For every tragedy created by Fukushima, there a…

IIRC, it's a legacy of the cold war. The game theory strategists realised that any use of nuclear weapons would either escalate, or end up in a massive defeat. You can start with a tactical nuke wiping out troops, it will escalate to larger nukes wiping out ships, and eventually you're dropping very large nukes on population centers. Mutually Assured Destruction was the only solution. (Or peace, but let's be realisti…

I am pro-nuclear, but the above comment is incredibly, maddeningly stupid. It's so amazingly stupid that I don't know where to begin. The hidden assumption that there was an actual alternative to MAD? That the USG used radiation fear-mongering to shove MAD down our throats? That the USSR didn't use propaganda? That radiation isn't a big deal? That radiation only stays around for 30 years (a common mistake is to assume that half-life, which can indeed be something like 30years, equals how long radioisotopes will stay in the environment, which is completely bollocks)? The most horrible thing about that comment is that it was written by someone intelligent enough to compose a sentence, yet stupid enough to reach to the conclusions she did.
Post reply on HN