4 ms·

> Let's not forget it's a once-a-millenium kind of tsunami that occurred there. Maybe we should stop calling it that. It's now obvious that there was a miscalc

by varjag 10y ago

> Let's not forget it's a once-a-millenium kind of tsunami that occurred there. Maybe we should stop calling it that. It's now obvious that there was a miscalculation at site surveying stage, no need to hype it up. > That's the best thing we have, right now. The environmental record with just two INES scale 1 accidents is poor. As nuclear proliferates to places with even less safety culture and the number of reactors installed reactors grows, so will the catastrophic outcomes. If nuclear production grows say fivefold worldwide, it's not unreasonable to expect at least fivefold increase of INES 1 incidents. Which means instead of two catastrophes in a 30 years span we'd have 10 or more.

rimliu 10y ago
Actually it is unreasonable to expect fivefold increase. Unless the production will grow using 40years old reactors. If you consider environmental records of the nuclear power poor what can you say about other types of power plants which have even poorer record?
- varjag 10y ago
  It is entirely reasonable to expect that operation in places like (hypothetical) Venezuela, Pakistan or Jordan would be more accident-prone. And that's not accounting for very substantial chance of the sites ending up in warzones. For example, in my native Belarus on a new plant project they dinged the reactor vessel in installation a couple of times already. Three workers have died in process of construction so far. Can't say I'm looking forward to its operation. > If you consider environmental records of the nuclear power poor what can you say about other types of power plants which have even poorer record? I say even coal does not have as long lasting effect when replaced by cleaner tech (e.g. natural gas) as a nuclear fallout site.
  - rimliu 10y ago
    Oh we (Lithuania) are well aware of the new construction in Belarus and because it is close to the border and our capital we are not happy about it either. Coal spreads much more radiation compared to nuclear power plants.
    - Retric 10y ago
      People don't have linear responses to radiation. To simplify if you need 3 mutations in a specific order to cause cancer, if each events as 1/10,000 you get (1/10,000)^3 but if you go to (1/1,000)^3 it's not 10x as dangerous but 1,000x as dangerous.

by varjag 10y ago

rimliu 10y ago

Actually it is unreasonable to expect fivefold increase. Unless the production will grow using 40years old reactors. If you consider environmental records of the nuclear power poor what can you say about other types of power plants which have even poorer record?

varjag 10y ago
It is entirely reasonable to expect that operation in places like (hypothetical) Venezuela, Pakistan or Jordan would be more accident-prone. And that's not accounting for very substantial chance of the sites ending up in warzones. For example, in my native Belarus on a new plant project they dinged the reactor vessel in installation a couple of times already. Three workers have died in process of construction so far. Can't say I'm looking forward to its operation. > If you consider environmental records of the nuclear power poor what can you say about other types of power plants which have even poorer record? I say even coal does not have as long lasting effect when replaced by cleaner tech (e.g. natural gas) as a nuclear fallout site.
- rimliu 10y ago
  Oh we (Lithuania) are well aware of the new construction in Belarus and because it is close to the border and our capital we are not happy about it either. Coal spreads much more radiation compared to nuclear power plants.
  - Retric 10y ago
    People don't have linear responses to radiation. To simplify if you need 3 mutations in a specific order to cause cancer, if each events as 1/10,000 you get (1/10,000)^3 but if you go to (1/1,000)^3 it's not 10x as dangerous but 1,000x as dangerous.