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

81–90 of 188 posts

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

#81

Post by JanezStupar »

onli wrote: post #68
JanezStupar wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it interesting that you are commenting on a comment __with__ sources, while providing none yourself. After I make a tongue in cheek comment to your comment. You flail more rethoric at me, demanding sources from me (?). You also accuse me of trying to invert the burden of proof, while like I said you haven't really offered a source. Here is a source for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

That is not what I wanted to do. Thing is: The article cited is spotty in that regard, I pointed that out (you don't need sources for that) and I didn't and still don't understand your answer to that comment of mine. I don't want to discuss meta nor personal, so that's it for me.

See It is hard to take any of your statements seriously as your reading comprehension is so bad, that you don't even notice that you are arguing with the wrong guy.

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

#82

Post by qwertyboy »

fhd2 wrote: post #77
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…

> If you look at the numbers you'll see that nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest scalable energy source we've got. It's the energy source that has the fewest deaths per MWH produced, it doesn't produce CO2, etc. etc. How about nuclear waste though? Where do we put that? I'm with you, it seems like humanity at large is hysterical beyond reasonable levels about radiation. However, it's not like it's completely ha…

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 people. Cut down on the energy, and you quickly fund yourself cutting down on progress and on the welfare of the poor.

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.

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

#83

Post by Udo »

jsmeaton wrote: post #73
Udo wrote: post #48

The article reads as if it was commissioned by Tepco directly. Nuclear power is not risk-free. Plants need to be operated with competent designs under the watchful eyes of competent engineers. None of which was the case at Fukushima. The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct but misleading: it doesn't mean people get to ignore the dangers. Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukus…

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 there for people to judge, and I believe I explained where I see the problems. I did express some reservations about the completeness of the picture as it is being rendered in the article and I do believe some measure of caution is advisable, yes.

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

#84

Post by lkozma »

jasonkester wrote: post #67
lkozma wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you are arguing with the parent post? I think he's expressing a pro-nuclear sentiment similar to yours.

The nice thing about this place is that you don't have to be arguing to reply to a post. We sometimes have discussions where participants agree with one another, or even change their minds about things. It's a unique feature, so don't feel bad if it takes a while to get used to.

I'm not feeling bad, in fact, it seems that I had two more weeks of getting used to than you, looking at when our accounts were created, :)

The post to which I replied has been edited. Where it now says "I do agree" it used to say "However, I disagree with you on..." or something similar, and also in other places.

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

#85

Post by Udo »

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.

My reservations about the intent and reporting of the article aside, I do agree with you that the future holds safer reactors and that's a good thing.

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

#86

Post by ghshephard »

onli wrote: post #19
ghshephard wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single statement you made, with the exception of handling radioactive waste, applies more to coal than it does to nuclear power. Coal pollution doesn't "kill outright" - but does so slowly, over many years, and many, many more people than nuclear power. Coal waste continues to leak into the air, and into water systems. I'm not arguing that Nuclear power is "safe" (nothing, is - even solar power kills many peopl…

I always love it when coal is used as a comparision. Because: Coal isn't the alternative, solar and wind are Furthermore: Nuclear energy has a fairly high CO2 output, if you count it all together. So this argument against coal is itself an argument against nuclear energy. Most importantly: We can't manage nuclear waste. There is just no feasible scenario which makes sure for future generations that the nuclear waste…

I work in the smart grid industry, and have watched and studied several years of the Stanford Energy Seminars [1]. I totally agree that Solar/Wind are the future - but we know how to supply our electrical needs with Coal (and Natural gas in part of the United States) and Nuclear power today. It's going to take 20+ years to transition to a Wind/Solar future, so the real question is not whether we should transition to wind/solar (we should) - but what do we invest our resources in while we transition to that future? Do we build (A) More coal plants or (B) More nuclear plants. (Throw in the curveball (C) start fracking more and exporting natural gas - which comes with it's own environmental costs)

I've just spent the last two weeks in the UK working on various Low Carbon smart grid projects, and the challenges of Distributed Generation (mostly wind right now in the UK) are significant - the large one being building the Transmission/Distribution network to handle this somewhat erratic source of power.

So - the future is clear, but the journey is still in question. I vote nuclear power - The impact to future generations of carefully buried waste will be much, much less than the impact of global warming.

[1] http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/event-archive

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

#87

Post by VLM »

JanezStupar wrote: post #23
onli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always love it when coal is used as a comparision. Because: Coal isn't the alternative, solar and wind are Furthermore: Nuclear energy has a fairly high CO2 output, if you count it all together. So this argument against coal is itself an argument against nuclear energy. Most importantly: We can't manage nuclear waste. There is just no feasible scenario which makes sure for future generations that the nuclear waste…

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 switches)

That is, obviously, a stable and profitable system design.

Multi-generationally, we could move to a system that can insta-shed perhaps 99% of load. Suddenly its not so hard.

I've done stuff with CAD/CAM machines. They don't like power interruptions because ignoring the problem is simpler than dealing with them. There's no technological reason why a next gen system can't have a functionality like "Hey, your power is shutting off in 5 seconds, so go into controlled shutdown mode and prepare to instantly come out of power saving mode momentarily". This isn't someone from the outside speculating but someone from the inside describing.

I would imagine a reasonably intelligent HVAC system talking to a smart enough grid could coordinate such that during worst case intervals they're off.

My phone has 8 or so hours at night to do its 30 minute or so top off charge, so why does it draw full power when the grid is stressed? Yeah that's just a couple watts, but 400 million 10 watt phones and tablets adds up to quite a draw. Laptop draw is even more impressive.

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

I sympathize that its harder to design an aluminum refinery to insta drop. Too bad, do it anyway. That limited hydro power is going to be needed by the hospital patients, traffic lights, SOME telecom gear, etc. Interestingly the improved insulation and control and dumping gear has the opportunity to lower overall energy use and possibly increase safety if done right.

(edited to add that only EEs are going to understand what this means, but a law that any plug in device with an effective negative resistance must implement full remotely controllable high speed low latency smart grid tech would go a heck of a long way toward grid stability in a renewables situation)

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

#88

Post by onli »

JanezStupar wrote: post #81
onli wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not what I wanted to do. Thing is: The article cited is spotty in that regard, I pointed that out (you don't need sources for that) and I didn't and still don't understand your answer to that comment of mine. I don't want to discuss meta nor personal, so that's it for me.

See It is hard to take any of your statements seriously as your reading comprehension is so bad, that you don't even notice that you are arguing with the wrong guy.

You don't know what reading comprehension means. Hint: Remembering a small username not even visible when replying to a comment deeper down in a thread has nothing to do with it.

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

#89

Post by elorant »

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…

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.

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

#90

Post by scythe »

elorant wrote: post #89
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…

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.

On the plus side, we are really good at it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X697yZBCN8w

Post reply on HN