3 ms·

Got lucky? I think the opposite: Chernobyl was unlucky. I mean, you're basically calling all these nuclear incidents "lucky". That doesn't statistically hold. h

Got lucky? I think the opposite: Chernobyl was unlucky. I mean, you're basically calling all these nuclear incidents "lucky". That doesn't statistically hold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and...

thinkcontext 9y ago
Imagine you were behind the scenes of the Fukushima crisis. You have to begin planning for the evacuation of the outskirts of Tokyo because you have been told that the situation on the plant site is uncontrolled, there have been multiple meltdowns and explosions and there's the possibility for things to get worse. At that point the game has changed around the calculation of risk. A few days later the situation is declared under control. How do you feel? I can think of no appropriate feeling aside from "lucky". The point is that the error bars around nuclear power operation are so large that perceptions of risk are not the same as for conventional power. Its interesting to think about the role of luck for Chernobyl. A grossly unsafe design combined with a bunch of incompetents performing live tests with multiple safety systems disabled, not much luck there. Was there luck in consequences of what followed? Possibly.
nisa 9y ago
Chernobyl was not unlucky. This was organisational failure and technical failure - few to none knew about xenon pit and that positive void coefficient was a compromise at the time to fulfill the demands. Fukushima? I'd say ignoring the known geological situation and dangers (no excuse for that IMHO) and the design of the backup cooling system that fails on a flood is also not unlucky. It's compromises to save cost and ignore dangers both times. We also have rotting reactors here in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Station

thinkcontext 9y ago

Imagine you were behind the scenes of the Fukushima crisis. You have to begin planning for the evacuation of the outskirts of Tokyo because you have been told that the situation on the plant site is uncontrolled, there have been multiple meltdowns and explosions and there's the possibility for things to get worse. At that point the game has changed around the calculation of risk. A few days later the situation is declared under control. How do you feel? I can think of no appropriate feeling aside from "lucky". The point is that the error bars around nuclear power operation are so large that perceptions of risk are not the same as for conventional power. Its interesting to think about the role of luck for Chernobyl. A grossly unsafe design combined with a bunch of incompetents performing live tests with multiple safety systems disabled, not much luck there. Was there luck in consequences of what followed? Possibly.

nisa 9y ago

Chernobyl was not unlucky. This was organisational failure and technical failure - few to none knew about xenon pit and that positive void coefficient was a compromise at the time to fulfill the demands. Fukushima? I'd say ignoring the known geological situation and dangers (no excuse for that IMHO) and the design of the backup cooling system that fails on a flood is also not unlucky. It's compromises to save cost and ignore dangers both times. We also have rotting reactors here in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Station