Live data from Hacker News

Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

spectrum.ieee.org

61–63 of 63 posts

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really scaremongering? Fukushima was a close call. Considering the population density and the inherent risks (quakes) in Japan, I would say it's a wise decision. Who wants a population living under fear? Fission is a good source of energy, but nuclear plants are obviously less reliable than expected. That will be a thrust to research better alternatives, including better nuclear plant designs, why not?

Don't forget that the Tohoku earthquake killed almost 20,000 people. The worst estimates for Fukushima predict it will cause 1,000 deaths. Median estimates predict a couple hundred deaths. Even though management was criminally bad, Fukushima still killed fewer people than the equivalent number of coal plants run for the same time. Fukushima ran for 40 years, so that's 25 deaths per year worst-case. According to the C…

Do I really have to point at the logical fallacy you're using here? You're basically saying nuclear power doesn't suck because coal sucks.

Let me tell you about how many people die each year from the hydroelectrics that power 90% of my country.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that the plants are less reliable. The technology is great. It's the humans that aren't reliable.

If the humans operating the plants are not reliable, it means the plants are unreliable. You're running in circles with your argument.

I don't think you know what circular reasoning is.

Are you seriously suggesting that anything that isn't designed against every conceivable example of human incompetence, is a flawed design?

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#63
post #58
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Used as a material similar to concrete.

The fun thing about this argument, is that it's pro-nuclear. Nuclear fission reactors are the only thing on this planet that reduce radioactive emissions. By quite a bit even. Of course, after that reduction, we massively concentrate what is left and then store that absurd concentration in a really small spot, where "nothing can ever go wrong". The problem with radioactivity is not nuclear power, it's the idiotic way…

Good luck putting plutonium into building materials.
Post reply on HN