7 ms·

Fukushima was an excellent demonstration of what can happen. You devastate huge areas of land and make them unlivable for generations. This is especially applic

by hugi 8y ago

Fukushima was an excellent demonstration of what can happen. You devastate huge areas of land and make them unlivable for generations. This is especially applicable to the United States that has proven entirely unable to handle it's own nuclear waste and just accumulates it at the sites where it's generated, waiting for disaster to happen.

cm2187 8y ago
I always thought that nuclear waste was a non problem. It is a minuscule amount of confined hazardous material. Even if you don't recycle it, the impact on the environment is negligible. But I agree that the devastation of huge areas of land is a problem, but let's also keep in mind that the reactors that blew up where early generations reactors. More modern design do not present those risks [1]. Judging nuclear energy based on 1960s design is like judging aviation based on the safety records of 1930s planes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
- hannob 8y ago
  > But I agree that the devastation of huge areas of land is a problem, but let's also keep in mind that the reactors that blew up where early generations reactors. With "early generation reactors" you mean all the ones that exist. The whole "next generation reactor" / "generation 4 reactor" thing is at this point nothing more than vague plans for what could be.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    That's overstating things. Fukushima was built in the 70s. A nearby reactor faced the same challenges but was built a decade later, and it was fine. That's just a GenII, still not as safe as the GenIII+ we're building now. Chernobyl, of course, was a horrific design that didn't even have a containment dome. Nobody builds reactors like that anymore. And GenIV is a little more than vague plans; e.g. Terrestrial Energy's molten salt reactor has already gotten through the hardest part of Canada's licensing process, which puts them on track for a demo reactor by 2025 or so.
    - hairytrog 8y ago
      They have to secure a few B$ in funding. lol.
- Krasnol 8y ago
  Sure it is a non problem. If your country is the size of the USA and nobody bothers if you let it disappear somewhere in the desert. Which is not the case in Germany and most of the countries. People just don't want to have a nuclear waste dump near by and Germany needs to spend a hell lot of money to clean up the last mine they used as a dump already. The tech is dead and the lobby won't be able to ride that current artificial hype for ever...
Andrew_nenakhov 8y ago
Huge areas of land unlivable for generations is an overstatement. Fukishima and Chernobyl exclusion zones are lush green forests that where wildlife thrives.
- _ph_ 8y ago
  Well the wildlife prospers around Chernobyl exactly because it is not safe for humans to live there. Absence of humans usually is great for the wildlife. Besides the wild animals just not knowing about radioactivity, humans are way more sensitive to radiation due to their typically longer life spans.
- helpme3 8y ago
  The wildlife isn't exactly thriving, but I guess getting dosed is better than human contact for most species: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/science/nature-adapts-to-chernobyl.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/science/nature-adapts-to-...
deepsun 8y ago
Afaik, the main problem with Fukushima disaster was awful handling by Japanese management, mostly finger pointing, instead of fixing the problem. In particular Fukushima case, the evacuation caused more harm than fallout would do, so, in retrospective, it would be better to not evacuate. There is no "huge areas devastated and unlivable for generations".
lstodd 8y ago
This point about devastating huge areas of land re Fukushima is so wrong I don't even. It was idiocy and blame-shifting from top to bottom. And yes people die from other people's idiocy in rather much bigger numbers.
selectodude 8y ago
Hiroshima was literally leveled by an atomic bomb and wasn’t unlivable for even a full generation.
- pfdietz 8y ago
  A 13 kiloton fission bomb produces about .01% of the long lived fission products that are resident in the core of a 1 GW(e) reactor just before refueling.
realusername 8y ago
Is that sarcasm? The exclusion zone of Fukushima is very small and people already live there again. The total impact of Fukushima (the nuclear disaster) is one death of a plant employee and 3 people getting cancer.

by hugi 8y ago

cm2187 8y ago

I always thought that nuclear waste was a non problem. It is a minuscule amount of confined hazardous material. Even if you don't recycle it, the impact on the environment is negligible. But I agree that the devastation of huge areas of land is a problem, but let's also keep in mind that the reactors that blew up where early generations reactors. More modern design do not present those risks [1]. Judging nuclear energy based on 1960s design is like judging aviation based on the safety records of 1930s planes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

hannob 8y ago
> But I agree that the devastation of huge areas of land is a problem, but let's also keep in mind that the reactors that blew up where early generations reactors. With "early generation reactors" you mean all the ones that exist. The whole "next generation reactor" / "generation 4 reactor" thing is at this point nothing more than vague plans for what could be.
- DennisP 8y ago
  That's overstating things. Fukushima was built in the 70s. A nearby reactor faced the same challenges but was built a decade later, and it was fine. That's just a GenII, still not as safe as the GenIII+ we're building now. Chernobyl, of course, was a horrific design that didn't even have a containment dome. Nobody builds reactors like that anymore. And GenIV is a little more than vague plans; e.g. Terrestrial Energy's molten salt reactor has already gotten through the hardest part of Canada's licensing process, which puts them on track for a demo reactor by 2025 or so.
  - hairytrog 8y ago
    They have to secure a few B$ in funding. lol.
Krasnol 8y ago
Sure it is a non problem. If your country is the size of the USA and nobody bothers if you let it disappear somewhere in the desert. Which is not the case in Germany and most of the countries. People just don't want to have a nuclear waste dump near by and Germany needs to spend a hell lot of money to clean up the last mine they used as a dump already. The tech is dead and the lobby won't be able to ride that current artificial hype for ever...

Andrew_nenakhov 8y ago

Huge areas of land unlivable for generations is an overstatement. Fukishima and Chernobyl exclusion zones are lush green forests that where wildlife thrives.

_ph_ 8y ago
Well the wildlife prospers around Chernobyl exactly because it is not safe for humans to live there. Absence of humans usually is great for the wildlife. Besides the wild animals just not knowing about radioactivity, humans are way more sensitive to radiation due to their typically longer life spans.
helpme3 8y ago
The wildlife isn't exactly thriving, but I guess getting dosed is better than human contact for most species: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/science/nature-adapts-to-chernobyl.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/science/nature-adapts-to-...

deepsun 8y ago

Afaik, the main problem with Fukushima disaster was awful handling by Japanese management, mostly finger pointing, instead of fixing the problem. In particular Fukushima case, the evacuation caused more harm than fallout would do, so, in retrospective, it would be better to not evacuate. There is no "huge areas devastated and unlivable for generations".

lstodd 8y ago

This point about devastating huge areas of land re Fukushima is so wrong I don't even. It was idiocy and blame-shifting from top to bottom. And yes people die from other people's idiocy in rather much bigger numbers.

selectodude 8y ago

Hiroshima was literally leveled by an atomic bomb and wasn’t unlivable for even a full generation.

pfdietz 8y ago
A 13 kiloton fission bomb produces about .01% of the long lived fission products that are resident in the core of a 1 GW(e) reactor just before refueling.

realusername 8y ago

Is that sarcasm? The exclusion zone of Fukushima is very small and people already live there again. The total impact of Fukushima (the nuclear disaster) is one death of a plant employee and 3 people getting cancer.