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

Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 157 posts

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#91

Post by danparsonson »

david_p wrote: post #23

I think it might be time for those who don't have a clue to stop talking about this. People are and will be diing because of what is happening now. Calling this "ok" and "safe" is borderline obscene. Plus, as told in other comments, this article dates back to yesterday and recent news are less and less reassuring (e.g. the containment vessel is now broken in one reactor). Thank you.

'People' have not died because of the reactor problems - there has been one reported fatality due to a crane accident. And do you have a source for "the containment vessel is now broken in one reactor"? A site linked elsewhere in these comments (http://mitnse.com/) reports that the suppression chamber in one reactor may be damaged but that's not 'the containment vessel'.

I agree with your desire to stop the FUD, but be careful you don't spread it yourself.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#92

Post by [deleted] »

dublinclontarf wrote: post #29
antirez wrote: post #5

Enough articles "everything is fine" for my tastes circulating onto Hacker News, while instead the facts created more and more concerns. I think it's better to just wait, and hope, instead of blabling about things that even the top experts of the world are having an hard time to figure. There will be a time, in a few weeks, and hopefully after a disaster was avoided, to speculate about the real security of nuke power…

Sadly within a few weeks, armies of anti-nuclear campainers, writers, and politicians will have jumped on this and pumped it so through the roof that, even if everything in this article is correct most people won't listen. Look at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island (study after study found no major exposure by anyone). The hysteria over this is caused by the anti-nuclear people and groups trying to use this as a case aga…

[deleted]

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#93

Post by easp »

billybob wrote: post #73
hartror wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself a leftie greenie politically, and I am pro nuclear (with some small reservations). It pisses me off no end to see the same people campaigning for action on climate change campaigning against the one proven at scale technology that can help us out of the climate change mess.

I'm not an environmentalist, but as a technology person, I'm extremely skeptical of claims that nuclear power can be safe, however well-designed the reactors are today. It's hard enough to tell whether my web server will be able to handle next year's traffic. Nuclear power produces waste that is dangerous for thousands of years. How can anyone say, with a straight face, that they have a plan for that? All of us will…

Yes, advocates are over promising on safety, but the incumbent alternatives (burning fossil fuels) have their own downsides with global impact.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#94

Post by dublinclontarf »

jshen wrote: post #79
dublinclontarf wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there was exposure, certainly those 4000 children recieved high enough levels. However this is a far cry of hundreds of thousands of dangerous exposures, massive increases of cancer rates and birth defects that are still happening that most people think of. I myself thought just that until recently after investigating it.

Are you saying that only 4000 people were affected?

Read the reports.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#95

Post by sutro »

knieveltech wrote: post #74
billybob wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an environmentalist, but as a technology person, I'm extremely skeptical of claims that nuclear power can be safe, however well-designed the reactors are today. It's hard enough to tell whether my web server will be able to handle next year's traffic. Nuclear power produces waste that is dangerous for thousands of years. How can anyone say, with a straight face, that they have a plan for that? All of us will…

The thing is, it doesn't take hordes of engineers nearly a decade to design your web server.

Good point. It took hordes of engineers almost two decades to design his web server. http://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#96

Post by dublinclontarf »

moe wrote: post #87
dublinclontarf wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I haven't read it, it may be fear mongering material. But then again, if really only 4050 people were affected, why is everyone making such a big deal about it? They're making a big deal for 2 reasons. First it WAS a big deal. What happened is nothing to sniff at. So making a big deal over Chernobyl is no problem. Second, the problem is that the anti-nuclear movement is trying to make people believe that it was much…

First it WAS a big deal. What happened is nothing to sniff at. Sorry, but I think you're contradicting yourself here. First you say 4050 people affected and totaling "only" 90 deaths is not a big deal (which I would agree with) - and now you say the opposite? If it was commonly agreed that the number of casualties was that low then I really don't get why even the pro-nuclear parties refer to it as the dramatic event…

>I'm not claiming to have the definite answer. I just don't understand where people like you are taking their confidence from.

I get my confidence from my understanding of nuclear energy. I'm not a nuclear scientist, but if your even remotely technically inclined(or just make an effort to understand) the basics are not hard to learn.

Most people think it's beyond their ability to understand how nuclear works so they don't even try, it might as well be black magic to them. It's then really easy to scare them with nuclear horror stories, and no amount of facts can undo that because they haven't got the fundamentals to understand those facts.

Did you know that in 1957 there was a fire in a military nuclear reactor in the UK burning for 2 days before it was shut down? Much of this burned nuclear material was passing almost freely into the atmosphere with not a single dangerous dose of radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Or in another accident in 1961 three operators were killed(not by radiation), one of which was stuck to the ceiling with debris from the initial explosion. The rescue team used meat hooks on sticks to retrieve the body(in parts), being able to spend less than 57 seconds in the area. The bodies were so radioactive that they had to be berried in lead caskets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#97

Post by jshen »

dublinclontarf wrote: post #94
jshen wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that only 4000 people were affected?

Read the reports.

You didn't answer the question, nor did you link any reports. Are you saying that only 4000 people were affected?

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#98

Post by Robin_Message »

dublinclontarf wrote: post #29
antirez wrote: post #5

Enough articles "everything is fine" for my tastes circulating onto Hacker News, while instead the facts created more and more concerns. I think it's better to just wait, and hope, instead of blabling about things that even the top experts of the world are having an hard time to figure. There will be a time, in a few weeks, and hopefully after a disaster was avoided, to speculate about the real security of nuke power…

Sadly within a few weeks, armies of anti-nuclear campainers, writers, and politicians will have jumped on this and pumped it so through the roof that, even if everything in this article is correct most people won't listen. Look at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island (study after study found no major exposure by anyone). The hysteria over this is caused by the anti-nuclear people and groups trying to use this as a case aga…

I agree that balance is good, and that in truth, nuclear power is very safe, but consider what happens if there is a major release of radioactivity. How is this article going to look then? I think you'd agree it would weaken the credibility of pro-nuclear campaigners.

Lying for the sake of truth is a bad idea.

As it stands, a meltdown is a definite possibility (not necessarily probable.) Perhaps a better stratergy would be to say "It might meltdown. In which case the reactor will be ruined, but no radioactivity will be released. Or the primary vessel might be damaged, in which case this would be a Chenobyl style disaster, except we have already evacuated the area as a precaution, so the estimated death toll would be 10 (or 100 or whatever.)"

I'd say people fear what they don't understand; having lots of people, especially scientists and politicians, say "there's nothing to worry about" only increases peoples' worry – especially when bits of the plant keep exploding.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#99

Post by lukeschlather »

natnat wrote: post #90
billybob wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an environmentalist, but as a technology person, I'm extremely skeptical of claims that nuclear power can be safe, however well-designed the reactors are today. It's hard enough to tell whether my web server will be able to handle next year's traffic. Nuclear power produces waste that is dangerous for thousands of years. How can anyone say, with a straight face, that they have a plan for that? All of us will…

Before saying that nuclear power isn't safe enough, consider where we get most of our electricity from today: coal. Coal may have been around a long time, but it is far more dangerous than nuclear power. The fly ash produced by coal burning often contains substantial concentrations of uranium (not too bad) and radium (very bad), as well as all sorts of other toxic but non-radioactive chemicals like lead. Although the…

I would also add that a lot of what we call nuclear waste in the US could be re-used as fuel if we built processing plants and modern reactors.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#100

Post by Robin_Message »

nakkiel wrote: post #85
kmfrk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sadly within a few weeks, armies of anti-nuclear campainers, writers, and politicians will have jumped on this and pumped it so through the roof that, even if everything in this article is correct most people won't listen. NYT, Guardian, Spiegel, Mother Jones, The Atlantic (every online publication there is), every news TV channel (except Al Jazeera). Greenpeace are all over the place with their campaigning. The hys…

I deeply agree with that. At the same time, I believe it's time to forcefully put other energy sources to use, make them work and more generally give them their chance. I'd go as far as saying this would draw a lot of economical activity world-wide and get us out of the economical crisis for good. In a way, I see this event as an opportunity. It's just been demonstrated that Nuclear Energy is safe enough (at least, t…

Hang on, I'm confused. If you think nuclear energy is good, why should the others get a chance? Surely we should go with the best option (which obviously includes diversity, but ought to have the overall best as its main component.)

I don't mean to be rude, but this isn't a playground. Solar power will not get a complex if nuclear is chosen instead. Our way of life depends on energy, and just hoping other sources will work out seems naive at best.

Post reply on HN