3 ms·

Fukushima Daiichi..which killed zero people from radiation. I think we have to reflect on whether or not we overreacted from that accident. In a sense it shows

Fukushima Daiichi..which killed zero people from radiation. I think we have to reflect on whether or not we overreacted from that accident. In a sense it shows that even in crazy conditions, most of the core remains in the plant, and the radiation released isn't much of a health threat. Meanwhile coal kills a 200,000 per year while operating normally! The difference is astounding, yet nuclear is the most regulated industry on earth.

varjag 8y ago
Fukushima did massive contamination of inhabitable land, which is in short supply in Japan already. But the only reason it wasn't much worse is the wind pattern blowing towards the sea. > Meanwhile coal kills a 200,000 per year while operating normally! Coal is definitely the worst conventional energy generation tech. No wonder nuclear advocates love to focus on it as if it's the only alternative. That said, do you know anyone who died from coal?
- mc32 8y ago
  >That said, do you know anyone who died from coal? Personally no. But in production of coal you have many miners’ lives cut short as a direct consequence of mining activities. Now, that’s short of the annual number listed there but this is a known direct consequence.
  - acidburnNSA 8y ago
    Respiratory disease kills everyday people from coal emissions left and right by similar mechanisms to smoking. The numbers are huge for asthma and COPD, and large fractions of those are attributed to fossil fuel air pollution. In less developed energy markets, indoor cooking is as bad or worse. In the USA, the Clean Air Act saves lives like crazy but we still are killed by fossil emissions.
- acidburnNSA 8y ago
  > Fukushima did massive contamination of inhabitable land Have you seen the dose rates in the area recently and compared them to the higher end of natural background in inhabited areas on Earth? If not I recommend you do. It's very reasonable to evacuate an area during a massive nuclear accident. When the dose rate goes down, it's very reasonable to go back. Here's a handy reference: [1]. The main point is that global warming gets rid of even more inhabitable land by pushing people out of cities en masse. > No wonder nuclear advocates love to focus on it as if it's the only alternative. Nuclear is safer than almost every other energy source. More people fall of their roofs installing solar panels per TWh than people die from nuclear accidents. Hydro has killed people by the 100,000 as well. Shoot, even wind kills people with ice-throw [2]. > That said, do you know anyone who died from coal? A few hundred thousand per year, but no I don't actually know any of those people. Do you know anyone who has died from nuclear power, which kills 6 orders of magnitude fewer people? The main point is that global warming is the serious threat and we should throw all serious low-carbon energy sources at it. Nuclear is the only large-scale operational low-carbon source that can run through daily and seasonal weather shifts, so it should play a large role. Wind and solar are needed as well, at about 20x their current deployment. [1] https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
  - varjag 8y ago
    > More people fall of their roofs installing solar panels per TWh than people die from nuclear accidents. Belarus has not commissioned its first nuclear plant yet, but already two construction workers died on its construction. That's already +INF amount of deaths per TW generated nationally. > Do you know anyone who has died from nuclear power, which kills 6 orders of magnitude fewer people? I actually do, met a dying Chernobyl liquidator in early 1990s.

varjag 8y ago

Fukushima did massive contamination of inhabitable land, which is in short supply in Japan already. But the only reason it wasn't much worse is the wind pattern blowing towards the sea. > Meanwhile coal kills a 200,000 per year while operating normally! Coal is definitely the worst conventional energy generation tech. No wonder nuclear advocates love to focus on it as if it's the only alternative. That said, do you know anyone who died from coal?

mc32 8y ago
>That said, do you know anyone who died from coal? Personally no. But in production of coal you have many miners’ lives cut short as a direct consequence of mining activities. Now, that’s short of the annual number listed there but this is a known direct consequence.
- acidburnNSA 8y ago
  Respiratory disease kills everyday people from coal emissions left and right by similar mechanisms to smoking. The numbers are huge for asthma and COPD, and large fractions of those are attributed to fossil fuel air pollution. In less developed energy markets, indoor cooking is as bad or worse. In the USA, the Clean Air Act saves lives like crazy but we still are killed by fossil emissions.
acidburnNSA 8y ago
> Fukushima did massive contamination of inhabitable land Have you seen the dose rates in the area recently and compared them to the higher end of natural background in inhabited areas on Earth? If not I recommend you do. It's very reasonable to evacuate an area during a massive nuclear accident. When the dose rate goes down, it's very reasonable to go back. Here's a handy reference: [1]. The main point is that global warming gets rid of even more inhabitable land by pushing people out of cities en masse. > No wonder nuclear advocates love to focus on it as if it's the only alternative. Nuclear is safer than almost every other energy source. More people fall of their roofs installing solar panels per TWh than people die from nuclear accidents. Hydro has killed people by the 100,000 as well. Shoot, even wind kills people with ice-throw [2]. > That said, do you know anyone who died from coal? A few hundred thousand per year, but no I don't actually know any of those people. Do you know anyone who has died from nuclear power, which kills 6 orders of magnitude fewer people? The main point is that global warming is the serious threat and we should throw all serious low-carbon energy sources at it. Nuclear is the only large-scale operational low-carbon source that can run through daily and seasonal weather shifts, so it should play a large role. Wind and solar are needed as well, at about 20x their current deployment. [1] https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
- varjag 8y ago
  > More people fall of their roofs installing solar panels per TWh than people die from nuclear accidents. Belarus has not commissioned its first nuclear plant yet, but already two construction workers died on its construction. That's already +INF amount of deaths per TW generated nationally. > Do you know anyone who has died from nuclear power, which kills 6 orders of magnitude fewer people? I actually do, met a dying Chernobyl liquidator in early 1990s.