5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... reminds us that nuc

by wiz21c 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... reminds us that nuclear kills much less than regular earthquakes, car accidents, or air pollution due to the burning of fossil fuels...

googletazer 9y ago
So you extrapolated what will happen to the spent nuclear fuel that already began to leak in some places and did the math? I'd like to see it.
baron816 9y ago
I’m not worried about how many people nuclear power kills every year. I’m worried about how many people it kills every hundred years. A major nuclear disaster, however unlikely, has the potential to kill millions of people and leave a big portion of the Earth uninhabitable for centuries. Just because we haven’t seen one on that scale yet, doesn’t mean we never will.
- Tarrosion 9y ago
  By nuclear disaster do you mean weapons use or just a power generation accident? I've never heard of a power plant accident potentially leaving a big portion of the Earth uninhabitable for centuries, but if there is something please enlighten me!
- wruza 9y ago
  Every year it kills 100 times less than every hundred years, that’s how average works, no matter what exact period you’re worried about. Also, no nuclear disaster ever killed millions — it is barely possible even with nuclear weapons. Relocation and financial risks, yes. Likelihood of such disaster is estimated to be too minor to not care about, say, “an asteroid kills the planet” movie scenario. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/scientists-say-nuclear-fuel-pools-pose-safety-health-risks-n577666 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/scientists-say-nuclear-... http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/safer-storage-of-spent-fuel http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/safer-stor...
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  Ok, let's do a Fermi-like estimation. Estimates on the number of deaths related to coal generation vary from around 13,00 to 30,000 per year in the US [1] and 500,000 per year in China [2]. The current world population is 7.6 billion, of which the US and China account for approximately 1.8 billion people. Let's round the coal-related death rate way down for easy math: 10,000 per year in the US and 100,000 per year in China. Then, multiply that rate by the world's population, and you have, let's say 450,000 coal-related deaths per year worldwide. This is a really squishy number, but we only need approximations here. You were concerned about how many people would die every hundred years from nuclear disasters, so let's see if we can work today's 450,000 per year estimated deaths backwards for the last hundred years. The world population was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.8 billion people in 1917. Assuming linear growth (I know, I know) and a strong r-value correlation for population vs. coal-related deaths (arguable, but again, Fermi estimate), we have to sum .00006 * population from 1.8 billion -> 7.6 billion, and we end up with approximately 28 million people. Which is to say, if we could gather up all the deaths, worldwide, from coal, over the last hundred years, and convert it into a single disaster, it would kill the entire city of Shanghai, and New York for the apple on top. That would have to be one hell of a nuclear disaster. Now, there are arguments to be made that the energy we've received from coal has also powered hospitals and technology which have saved or improved people's lives. There are also arguments to be made that the side-effects of coal (hospitalization, environmental disasters) cause the death toll to absolutely pale by comparison. And again, I've rounded these numbers down at every stage of the calculation. [1]: http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_fro... [pdf]; it includes its own numbers, at the 13,000 estimate, and the EPA's, at 14,000 to 36,000 range. [2]: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... (blog, but includes lots of supporting links; I'm open to alternative sources that give vastly different estimates).
  - nl 9y ago
    There are very few people who are anti-nuclear power who are pro-coal. Even ignoring renewables, gas solves many of the worst problems with coal.
- baxtr 9y ago
  Uninhabitable? Maybe for humans. Wildlife grows back stronger: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/wildlife-returns-to-radioactive-wasteland-of-chernobyl/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/wildlife-returns-...
  - StanislavPetrov 9y ago
    The fact that toxic radiation is less lethal than humans is an indictment of humans, not an endorsement of radiation.
- xelxebar 9y ago
  "However unlikely" This is where probabilities bite us. If the probability is small enough then the expected death toll will drop to almost zero which merits little worry, despite how horrific said event mightt be. It sounds like you're doing the natural, intuitive thing of picturing a very scary scenerio and then wanting to avoid said scenerio at all costs. The problem is, while you're busy avoiding some almost-zero probability event, you're also nuking your ability to mitigate events with actual high expected deaths and loses. Fossil fuels already kill on the order of millions per century [citation needed], so if you think nuclear power does the same, it means we should expect several Chernobyl level events in the next few decades. Are you sure your probabilities are well-calibrated here? Also, some of the rough skimming I've done has me believing that cycles without possibility of medown can be built, cf. liquid salt reactors. IIRC, some of these even have really nice waste profiles with the worst stuff only having half lives in the decades and very low volume at that [citation badly needed]. Anyway, fear of nuclear power reads to me like a fear of planes over cars. Chernobyl and Fukushima were single, isolated events making them visible and viscerally scary like plane crashes. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, pick us off one by one, relentlessly, but never so loudly as to evoke that gut-level fear.
adekok 9y ago
And that's with incompetence and neglect. http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/cause/ http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/cause/ Personnel had an insufficiently detailed understanding of technical procedures involved with the nuclear reactor, and knowingly ignored regulations to speed test completion And a Japanese reactor that didn't melt down: https://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311 https://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant... Before beginning construction, Tohoku Electric conducted surveys and simulations aimed at predicting tsunami levels. The initial predictions showed that tsunamis in the region historically had an average height of about 3 meters. Based on that, the company constructed its plant at 14.7 meters above sea level, almost five times that height. As more research was done, the estimated tsunami levels climbed higher, and Tohoku Electric conducted periodic checkups based on the new estimate. There's just no good reason for either Chernobyl or Fukushima. Both were preventable by following simple safety procedures.
- lovemenot 9y ago
  >> And that's with incompetence and neglect. Yes, and rightly so. Engineers must design around human fallibility. They don't get to blame human error and claim the whole system is otherwise perfectly safe. Either the system is safe under conditions of human fallibility, or it is unsafe. >> There's just no good reason for either Chernobyl or Fukushima Of course there is reason. Humans are part of the system and a relatively weak part at that.
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    How do engineers design around the propensity of politicians to kick the can down the road?
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      Dual major in theology?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
tigershark 9y ago
Go and live there if you think that it is really harmless. I would rather not honestly after it took them 6 years just to get the first image of the corium after endless attempts.
- kurthr 9y ago
  Well, just note that after Chernobyl, Western Europe did live there. The size of the smoke plume (1000s km), radioactive material released (6000kg), and wind/weather during the event affected almost every country including Spain, England, and Norway. Those 300M people arguably recieved higher doses than you would living in the evacuated Fukushima area. https://youtu.be/MU4_bJT8W3Y https://youtu.be/MU4_bJT8W3Y The point is that it remained contained... that's good. With prpoer monitor wells even the ground water need not be badly contaminated.
- serichsen 9y ago
  Given the choice, I would.
- Grue3 9y ago
  Been near there just like a week ago (Tomioka town). Opened up for resettlement this year. Lots of damage from tsunami, but new buildings are being constructed and there are several functioning hotels and convenience stores. There's massive work going on to decontaminate the remaining areas by 2020. As long as you don't go inside of the nuclear station it should be ok.
SiempreViernes 9y ago
Most radiation kills are due to slow secondary effects, so it's relatively easy to get out of the way. I don't think anyone really argues that if people would move back before deconamination they would all be fine. Just for reference, the number of people worldwide who died due to contamination from atmospheric atom bomb testing is estimated to be 430 000 by the end of last century: "Radioactive Heaven and Earth, The health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons testing in, on, and above the earth", pages 163-165
- cocoablazing 9y ago
  That is an extrapolation using the unproven linear no threshold hypothesis.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  Isn't that the same as attributed to burning coal in undera year world wide? Those were also tests where the escape of massive amounts of radiation into the environment was a planned, even if indirectly, effect. Also, as a sibling comment said, that numb is probably overstated by a large amount.
StanislavPetrov 9y ago
Thankfully for the world and the future of all life on earth its not a binary choice between fossil fuels or nuclear.
Aron 9y ago
Gah -- reminds me of the press at the time talking about detectable radiation on the West Coast of the US. Yeah -- you know what else is detectable radiation? Stars from light-years away. I was shocked to see Germany respond so strongly to Fukushima. I think fortunately for the world solar and wind have become so cheap we can give up on making the world more rational about nuclear power.
bluthru 9y ago
It sure is expensive though: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/world/japan-now-estimates-fukushima-nuclear-cleanup-cost-at-180-billion/2016/11/28/7a704f98-b54e-11e6-939c-91749443c5e5_video.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/world/japan-now-estimat...
frik 9y ago
> reminds us that nuclear kills much less than regular earthquakes Stupid comment. Would you relocated near Fukushima or Chernobyl? Maybe you should. You would educate yourself and change your mind. And you would have to life with the related health issues. (The same for evil greedy owners of such energy companies)
- StreamBright 9y ago
  Actually you cannot. They do not let anybody live near to these sites.
- wiz21c 9y ago
  I work in a big city. It is polluted by cars, trucks, heating. That pollution kills 2 or 3 hundreds of people every year in that town. That scares me a lot more than the hypothetical explosion of the nuclear plant which I live 40km close...

by wiz21c 9y ago

googletazer 9y ago

So you extrapolated what will happen to the spent nuclear fuel that already began to leak in some places and did the math? I'd like to see it.

baron816 9y ago

I’m not worried about how many people nuclear power kills every year. I’m worried about how many people it kills every hundred years. A major nuclear disaster, however unlikely, has the potential to kill millions of people and leave a big portion of the Earth uninhabitable for centuries. Just because we haven’t seen one on that scale yet, doesn’t mean we never will.

Tarrosion 9y ago
By nuclear disaster do you mean weapons use or just a power generation accident? I've never heard of a power plant accident potentially leaving a big portion of the Earth uninhabitable for centuries, but if there is something please enlighten me!
wruza 9y ago
Every year it kills 100 times less than every hundred years, that’s how average works, no matter what exact period you’re worried about. Also, no nuclear disaster ever killed millions — it is barely possible even with nuclear weapons. Relocation and financial risks, yes. Likelihood of such disaster is estimated to be too minor to not care about, say, “an asteroid kills the planet” movie scenario. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/scientists-say-nuclear-fuel-pools-pose-safety-health-risks-n577666 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/scientists-say-nuclear-... http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/safer-storage-of-spent-fuel http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/safer-stor...
thaumaturgy 9y ago
Ok, let's do a Fermi-like estimation. Estimates on the number of deaths related to coal generation vary from around 13,00 to 30,000 per year in the US [1] and 500,000 per year in China [2]. The current world population is 7.6 billion, of which the US and China account for approximately 1.8 billion people. Let's round the coal-related death rate way down for easy math: 10,000 per year in the US and 100,000 per year in China. Then, multiply that rate by the world's population, and you have, let's say 450,000 coal-related deaths per year worldwide. This is a really squishy number, but we only need approximations here. You were concerned about how many people would die every hundred years from nuclear disasters, so let's see if we can work today's 450,000 per year estimated deaths backwards for the last hundred years. The world population was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.8 billion people in 1917. Assuming linear growth (I know, I know) and a strong r-value correlation for population vs. coal-related deaths (arguable, but again, Fermi estimate), we have to sum .00006 * population from 1.8 billion -> 7.6 billion, and we end up with approximately 28 million people. Which is to say, if we could gather up all the deaths, worldwide, from coal, over the last hundred years, and convert it into a single disaster, it would kill the entire city of Shanghai, and New York for the apple on top. That would have to be one hell of a nuclear disaster. Now, there are arguments to be made that the energy we've received from coal has also powered hospitals and technology which have saved or improved people's lives. There are also arguments to be made that the side-effects of coal (hospitalization, environmental disasters) cause the death toll to absolutely pale by comparison. And again, I've rounded these numbers down at every stage of the calculation. [1]: http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_fro... [pdf]; it includes its own numbers, at the 13,000 estimate, and the EPA's, at 14,000 to 36,000 range. [2]: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... (blog, but includes lots of supporting links; I'm open to alternative sources that give vastly different estimates).
- nl 9y ago
  There are very few people who are anti-nuclear power who are pro-coal. Even ignoring renewables, gas solves many of the worst problems with coal.
baxtr 9y ago
Uninhabitable? Maybe for humans. Wildlife grows back stronger: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/wildlife-returns-to-radioactive-wasteland-of-chernobyl/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/wildlife-returns-...
- StanislavPetrov 9y ago
  The fact that toxic radiation is less lethal than humans is an indictment of humans, not an endorsement of radiation.
xelxebar 9y ago
"However unlikely" This is where probabilities bite us. If the probability is small enough then the expected death toll will drop to almost zero which merits little worry, despite how horrific said event mightt be. It sounds like you're doing the natural, intuitive thing of picturing a very scary scenerio and then wanting to avoid said scenerio at all costs. The problem is, while you're busy avoiding some almost-zero probability event, you're also nuking your ability to mitigate events with actual high expected deaths and loses. Fossil fuels already kill on the order of millions per century [citation needed], so if you think nuclear power does the same, it means we should expect several Chernobyl level events in the next few decades. Are you sure your probabilities are well-calibrated here? Also, some of the rough skimming I've done has me believing that cycles without possibility of medown can be built, cf. liquid salt reactors. IIRC, some of these even have really nice waste profiles with the worst stuff only having half lives in the decades and very low volume at that [citation badly needed]. Anyway, fear of nuclear power reads to me like a fear of planes over cars. Chernobyl and Fukushima were single, isolated events making them visible and viscerally scary like plane crashes. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, pick us off one by one, relentlessly, but never so loudly as to evoke that gut-level fear.

adekok 9y ago

And that's with incompetence and neglect. http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/cause/ http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/cause/ Personnel had an insufficiently detailed understanding of technical procedures involved with the nuclear reactor, and knowingly ignored regulations to speed test completion And a Japanese reactor that didn't melt down: https://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311 https://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant... Before beginning construction, Tohoku Electric conducted surveys and simulations aimed at predicting tsunami levels. The initial predictions showed that tsunamis in the region historically had an average height of about 3 meters. Based on that, the company constructed its plant at 14.7 meters above sea level, almost five times that height. As more research was done, the estimated tsunami levels climbed higher, and Tohoku Electric conducted periodic checkups based on the new estimate. There's just no good reason for either Chernobyl or Fukushima. Both were preventable by following simple safety procedures.

lovemenot 9y ago
>> And that's with incompetence and neglect. Yes, and rightly so. Engineers must design around human fallibility. They don't get to blame human error and claim the whole system is otherwise perfectly safe. Either the system is safe under conditions of human fallibility, or it is unsafe. >> There's just no good reason for either Chernobyl or Fukushima Of course there is reason. Humans are part of the system and a relatively weak part at that.
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  How do engineers design around the propensity of politicians to kick the can down the road?
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    Dual major in theology?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

tigershark 9y ago

Go and live there if you think that it is really harmless. I would rather not honestly after it took them 6 years just to get the first image of the corium after endless attempts.

kurthr 9y ago
Well, just note that after Chernobyl, Western Europe did live there. The size of the smoke plume (1000s km), radioactive material released (6000kg), and wind/weather during the event affected almost every country including Spain, England, and Norway. Those 300M people arguably recieved higher doses than you would living in the evacuated Fukushima area. https://youtu.be/MU4_bJT8W3Y https://youtu.be/MU4_bJT8W3Y The point is that it remained contained... that's good. With prpoer monitor wells even the ground water need not be badly contaminated.
serichsen 9y ago
Given the choice, I would.
Grue3 9y ago
Been near there just like a week ago (Tomioka town). Opened up for resettlement this year. Lots of damage from tsunami, but new buildings are being constructed and there are several functioning hotels and convenience stores. There's massive work going on to decontaminate the remaining areas by 2020. As long as you don't go inside of the nuclear station it should be ok.

SiempreViernes 9y ago

Most radiation kills are due to slow secondary effects, so it's relatively easy to get out of the way. I don't think anyone really argues that if people would move back before deconamination they would all be fine. Just for reference, the number of people worldwide who died due to contamination from atmospheric atom bomb testing is estimated to be 430 000 by the end of last century: "Radioactive Heaven and Earth, The health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons testing in, on, and above the earth", pages 163-165

cocoablazing 9y ago
That is an extrapolation using the unproven linear no threshold hypothesis.
jimktrains2 9y ago
Isn't that the same as attributed to burning coal in undera year world wide? Those were also tests where the escape of massive amounts of radiation into the environment was a planned, even if indirectly, effect. Also, as a sibling comment said, that numb is probably overstated by a large amount.

StanislavPetrov 9y ago

Thankfully for the world and the future of all life on earth its not a binary choice between fossil fuels or nuclear.

Aron 9y ago

Gah -- reminds me of the press at the time talking about detectable radiation on the West Coast of the US. Yeah -- you know what else is detectable radiation? Stars from light-years away. I was shocked to see Germany respond so strongly to Fukushima. I think fortunately for the world solar and wind have become so cheap we can give up on making the world more rational about nuclear power.

bluthru 9y ago

It sure is expensive though: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/world/japan-now-estimates-fukushima-nuclear-cleanup-cost-at-180-billion/2016/11/28/7a704f98-b54e-11e6-939c-91749443c5e5_video.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/world/japan-now-estimat...

frik 9y ago

> reminds us that nuclear kills much less than regular earthquakes Stupid comment. Would you relocated near Fukushima or Chernobyl? Maybe you should. You would educate yourself and change your mind. And you would have to life with the related health issues. (The same for evil greedy owners of such energy companies)

StreamBright 9y ago
Actually you cannot. They do not let anybody live near to these sites.
wiz21c 9y ago
I work in a big city. It is polluted by cars, trucks, heating. That pollution kills 2 or 3 hundreds of people every year in that town. That scares me a lot more than the hypothetical explosion of the nuclear plant which I live 40km close...