3 ms·

Only not. We don't build plants like the one in Chernobyl anymore.

by Bud 8y ago

varjag 8y ago
I remember a lengthy and much upvoted post in r/worldnews explaining how Westinghouse designs are much safer than Chernobyl. The day before Fukushima blew up.
- vidarh 8y ago
  And most of the harm from Fukushima was the evacuation.
  - varjag 8y ago
    The wind blew into the sea. With Chernobyl it blew over my hometown: I have two family members with thyroid issues.
    - Giho 8y ago
      I'm sad for their misfortune but arguing against nuclear won't do any good for them, on contrary as this article states nuclear is safer than the other major energy sources. A family is a small sample size too. Of course we should also look into other studies of the energy sources total effect on humanity, to be sure. I think we have to see the big picture and not focus on our bubble. I see an analogy to car and plane safety when comparing coal and nuclear safety. Car accidents are more frequent and damage can vary, while plane accidents are seldom but often severe. It is difficult to foresee the future, but we have the past that give us a good indicator of what will save most lives.
    - vidarh 8y ago
      I feel for them. But with coal many more would have died from pollution. With more dams the contribution to climate change (gas released from rotting vegetation) would damage the planet, millions would be driven from their homes, and the risks of dam failures would keep being driven up and over time likely cause more deaths (as it has in the past). With more rooftop solar, more people would kill themselves in installation accidents. It's not a situation where shutting down nuclear just magically prevents deaths, because the demand for power is still there. It is a matter of shifting the risks elsewhere. And the numbers are clear that nuclear is far safer than most of the alternatives (most - it's not clear for example if that'd be the case for larger solar installations; it's rooftop installations that seems to be the biggest problem with solar). This doesn't mean we should uncritically build a ton of nuclear plants, but e.g. delaying the decommissioning of coal plants to take nuclear plants offline, the way Germany did, is tantamount to mass murder given what we know of the relative risks.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  That's not especially ironic. The Fukushima reactors that failed were designed by General Electric, Toshiba, and Hitachi in the early 1960s. Westinghouse was not involved. Nuclear power continues to demonstrate a very low risk to human life per TWh of electricity generated, including Chernobyl and Fukushima. That said, it's probably best for nuclear advocates to acknowledge that sufficiently incompetent/malicious humans and/or exceptional natural disasters can lead to large unplanned releases of fission products from any reactor. And then to re-emphasize that the actual risks to human health are still lower for nuclear power than for any fossil-based power system. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-reactor-background.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-...

Only not. We don't build plants like the one in Chernobyl anymore.

by Bud 8y ago

Only not. We don't build plants like the one in Chernobyl anymore.

I remember a lengthy and much upvoted post in r/worldnews explaining how Westinghouse designs are much safer than Chernobyl. The day before Fukushima blew up.

vidarh 8y ago
And most of the harm from Fukushima was the evacuation.
- varjag 8y ago
  The wind blew into the sea. With Chernobyl it blew over my hometown: I have two family members with thyroid issues.
  - Giho 8y ago
    I'm sad for their misfortune but arguing against nuclear won't do any good for them, on contrary as this article states nuclear is safer than the other major energy sources. A family is a small sample size too. Of course we should also look into other studies of the energy sources total effect on humanity, to be sure. I think we have to see the big picture and not focus on our bubble. I see an analogy to car and plane safety when comparing coal and nuclear safety. Car accidents are more frequent and damage can vary, while plane accidents are seldom but often severe. It is difficult to foresee the future, but we have the past that give us a good indicator of what will save most lives.
  - vidarh 8y ago
    I feel for them. But with coal many more would have died from pollution. With more dams the contribution to climate change (gas released from rotting vegetation) would damage the planet, millions would be driven from their homes, and the risks of dam failures would keep being driven up and over time likely cause more deaths (as it has in the past). With more rooftop solar, more people would kill themselves in installation accidents. It's not a situation where shutting down nuclear just magically prevents deaths, because the demand for power is still there. It is a matter of shifting the risks elsewhere. And the numbers are clear that nuclear is far safer than most of the alternatives (most - it's not clear for example if that'd be the case for larger solar installations; it's rooftop installations that seems to be the biggest problem with solar). This doesn't mean we should uncritically build a ton of nuclear plants, but e.g. delaying the decommissioning of coal plants to take nuclear plants offline, the way Germany did, is tantamount to mass murder given what we know of the relative risks.
philipkglass 8y ago
That's not especially ironic. The Fukushima reactors that failed were designed by General Electric, Toshiba, and Hitachi in the early 1960s. Westinghouse was not involved. Nuclear power continues to demonstrate a very low risk to human life per TWh of electricity generated, including Chernobyl and Fukushima. That said, it's probably best for nuclear advocates to acknowledge that sufficiently incompetent/malicious humans and/or exceptional natural disasters can lead to large unplanned releases of fission products from any reactor. And then to re-emphasize that the actual risks to human health are still lower for nuclear power than for any fossil-based power system. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-reactor-background.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-...