4 ms·

The public's nuclear acceptance is not about day to day death toll. It's about broken promises and Armageddon. Looking at the chart, I'd take gas over nuclear

by unabst 9y ago

The public's nuclear acceptance is not about day to day death toll. It's about broken promises and Armageddon. Looking at the chart, I'd take gas over nuclear in a heartbeat thinking of what nuclear has done to Japan. Nuclear can both power and destroy a country. Gas and other options do not. Neither does solar or wind which are not even in that chart. Say we have a new technology that is safer than nuclear, but had a one in a million chance to destroy Earth. It would be safest on paper, for however long paper and researchers still existed. "But Fukushima was a horrible place for a nuclear power plant and it was run by incompetent people," you say. But that's exactly the point. If we make a list of all the plants in the world and the safety measures they undermined and their staffing situation, how many would be stellar? How many would even admit anything?

mikeash 9y ago
Natural gas kills 4,000 people per PWh generated. Fukushima killed zero immediately, and might kill 100-200 eventually through increased cancer incidences. Fukushima made a few hundred square kilometers briefly unsafe, and some tens of square kilometers temporarily uninhabitable. (Or really, inhabitable but slightly unhealthy.) Fossil fuels are wrecking the entire planet. It's interesting that Fukushima seems to be all people remember about the Tohoku earthquake. 16,000 people died (for comparison the worst natural disaster in the US, the 1900 Galveston hurricane, killed 6,000-12,000), hundreds of thousands were displaced, and many towns were destroyed, but nobody remembers that. A dam failure triggered by the earthquake killed 12 people but nobody uses this to argue against dams.
- beders 9y ago
  briefly unsafe What crack are you smoking? How about you move to Chernobyl and check in with the local population. Oh, that's right. No one can live there anymore....
  - mikeash 9y ago
    A good chunk of the area evacuated for Fukushima was later cleared and the residents allowed to return. See here: http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/Evacuation-zone-03102017.pdf http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/Evacuation... I guess understanding the situation means I'm smoking crack?
    - unabst 9y ago
      Right. You see the red there? How long before it's all habitable? Here's another example. A beach that had a quarter million visitors a year had to be shut down, and was recently reopened thanks to "tide embankment construction". That's seven years of not being able to go to the beach because of nuclear, and now they're told it's safe because the water is blocked. Japan is still living with the disaster. For locals, the consequences of the incident continue to shape their lives. Statistics will not change anyone's mind. http://www.nippon.com/en/genre/society/l10385/ http://www.nippon.com/en/genre/society/l10385/
      - mikeash 9y ago
        The red part is what I described as "some tens of square kilometers temporarily uninhabitable." It's not the "briefly unsafe" part. > Statistics will not change anyone's mind. This is really what it comes down to, isn't it? And I agree, no matter what the numbers are, it doesn't convince opponents. I get that this is the case, but I'm still baffled by it when I'm confronted by such people here. I'd hope that HN commenters, at least, would be amenable.
- unabst 9y ago
  You're ignoring the suicide missions, the betrayed promises of the electric company, the endless coverage on the news, the anxiety and fear, and the government blatently lying about the health consequences. You're ignoring the long term consequences of habitability, of raw fish being a vital food source and the nuclear core having melt straight into the ocean. You're ignoring the media censorship. And that many of the "few" victims of cancer were children. The public's rejection of nuclear is about terror. With terrorists, we're willing to turn foreign policy on its head and wage war and go as far as travel bans. And with the terror of nuclear, Germany has shut down all of it's plants. The consequence? Germans feel safer. And no, no one has forgotten the Tsunami. That's blatantly offensive. I'm talking about nuclear to stay on topic.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    What suicide missions? The only people who have died at the reactor were killed by the tsunami. You're worried about contamination of fish? Coal power has contaminated fish throughout all the world's oceans with dangerous levels of mercury. You've probably seen warnings for children and pregnant women to be careful about the fish they eat and not to eat fish more than a couple of times a week. Coal is responsible for about half of that. Compare this to fears about potential contamination of some fish near Fukushima, and I'll take nuclear any day of the week and twice on Sunday if that's the choice. I constantly hear about the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. I don't recall hearing anything about the non-nuclear consequences of the earthquake after a few months. Is it offensive to state what I see?
    - unabst 9y ago
      Humans went back into the plant not knowing if it was going to explode. Whether they survived is not the issue. It's that they had to do it. Think 9/11 firefighters. You're constantly reminded of Fukushima because the disaster is still ongoing. An earthquake happens, people die, and we get over it. It's the ugly side of mother nature, and we get over it. A nuclear disaster happens, and it's a shit storm. Stories of incompetence, greed, shame, conspiracy, tragedy, and betrayal. It's the ugly side of human nature. And we can't get over it. Like the several radioactive isotopes that have a half-life of 30 years and remains in the environment for decades, it continues to be a problem, and a reminder of the worst of ourselves. You don't get to decide who gets offended. Justifying offending people based on what you did or didn't see, just shows you lack empathy. If you don't, I would choose my words more carefully.

by unabst 9y ago

mikeash 9y ago

Natural gas kills 4,000 people per PWh generated. Fukushima killed zero immediately, and might kill 100-200 eventually through increased cancer incidences. Fukushima made a few hundred square kilometers briefly unsafe, and some tens of square kilometers temporarily uninhabitable. (Or really, inhabitable but slightly unhealthy.) Fossil fuels are wrecking the entire planet. It's interesting that Fukushima seems to be all people remember about the Tohoku earthquake. 16,000 people died (for comparison the worst natural disaster in the US, the 1900 Galveston hurricane, killed 6,000-12,000), hundreds of thousands were displaced, and many towns were destroyed, but nobody remembers that. A dam failure triggered by the earthquake killed 12 people but nobody uses this to argue against dams.

beders 9y ago
briefly unsafe What crack are you smoking? How about you move to Chernobyl and check in with the local population. Oh, that's right. No one can live there anymore....
- mikeash 9y ago
  A good chunk of the area evacuated for Fukushima was later cleared and the residents allowed to return. See here: http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/Evacuation-zone-03102017.pdf http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/Evacuation... I guess understanding the situation means I'm smoking crack?
  - unabst 9y ago
    Right. You see the red there? How long before it's all habitable? Here's another example. A beach that had a quarter million visitors a year had to be shut down, and was recently reopened thanks to "tide embankment construction". That's seven years of not being able to go to the beach because of nuclear, and now they're told it's safe because the water is blocked. Japan is still living with the disaster. For locals, the consequences of the incident continue to shape their lives. Statistics will not change anyone's mind. http://www.nippon.com/en/genre/society/l10385/ http://www.nippon.com/en/genre/society/l10385/
    - mikeash 9y ago
      The red part is what I described as "some tens of square kilometers temporarily uninhabitable." It's not the "briefly unsafe" part. > Statistics will not change anyone's mind. This is really what it comes down to, isn't it? And I agree, no matter what the numbers are, it doesn't convince opponents. I get that this is the case, but I'm still baffled by it when I'm confronted by such people here. I'd hope that HN commenters, at least, would be amenable.
unabst 9y ago
You're ignoring the suicide missions, the betrayed promises of the electric company, the endless coverage on the news, the anxiety and fear, and the government blatently lying about the health consequences. You're ignoring the long term consequences of habitability, of raw fish being a vital food source and the nuclear core having melt straight into the ocean. You're ignoring the media censorship. And that many of the "few" victims of cancer were children. The public's rejection of nuclear is about terror. With terrorists, we're willing to turn foreign policy on its head and wage war and go as far as travel bans. And with the terror of nuclear, Germany has shut down all of it's plants. The consequence? Germans feel safer. And no, no one has forgotten the Tsunami. That's blatantly offensive. I'm talking about nuclear to stay on topic.
- mikeash 9y ago
  What suicide missions? The only people who have died at the reactor were killed by the tsunami. You're worried about contamination of fish? Coal power has contaminated fish throughout all the world's oceans with dangerous levels of mercury. You've probably seen warnings for children and pregnant women to be careful about the fish they eat and not to eat fish more than a couple of times a week. Coal is responsible for about half of that. Compare this to fears about potential contamination of some fish near Fukushima, and I'll take nuclear any day of the week and twice on Sunday if that's the choice. I constantly hear about the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. I don't recall hearing anything about the non-nuclear consequences of the earthquake after a few months. Is it offensive to state what I see?
  - unabst 9y ago
    Humans went back into the plant not knowing if it was going to explode. Whether they survived is not the issue. It's that they had to do it. Think 9/11 firefighters. You're constantly reminded of Fukushima because the disaster is still ongoing. An earthquake happens, people die, and we get over it. It's the ugly side of mother nature, and we get over it. A nuclear disaster happens, and it's a shit storm. Stories of incompetence, greed, shame, conspiracy, tragedy, and betrayal. It's the ugly side of human nature. And we can't get over it. Like the several radioactive isotopes that have a half-life of 30 years and remains in the environment for decades, it continues to be a problem, and a reminder of the worst of ourselves. You don't get to decide who gets offended. Justifying offending people based on what you did or didn't see, just shows you lack empathy. If you don't, I would choose my words more carefully.