5 ms·

Politics. Abusing the peoples ignorance.

• toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Violating the public trust has a cost.
  • ekianjo 7y ago
    What violation? So far maybe only one person died (not even certain) from radiations caused by Fukushima. 15 000 died in the tsunami. So why is Japan stopping nuclear power exactly? In the meantime they use way more dirtier sources of energy that will directly cause lung diseases and deaths to way more people.
    • toomuchtodo 7y ago
      http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-... * Official figures show that there have been well over 1000 deaths from maintaining the evacuation, in contrast to little risk from radiation if early return had been allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Costs_of_the_clean-up_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos... * Cleanup cost is estimated at $187 billion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk... * Almost 50k local residents still remain evacuees 8 years later It's plainly obvious why a populace would no longer trust nuclear as a generation technology based on how it was managed, regardless of your air pollution arguments (which I agree with; Japan should move to wind, solar, and batteries rapidly instead of coal).
      • ekianjo 7y ago
        > Japan should move to wind, solar, and batteries rapidly instead of coal There is no such technology Japan can move to at this stage, to cover the needs of major cities. DOn't forget that land is extremely expensive in japan (as it's rare to get stable and flat surfaces) and there is no place in which you can build large areas of solar farms just next to cities that need it. For high energy density production there's only fossil fuels (which is awful on so many levels) and nuclear (which is very safe even when accounting for Fukushima and Chernobyl and Three Miles Island). Pretending that there is right now more to renewables than just maybe up to 10% of energy needs is lying to the public. Of course, we should continue to invest in renewables to make their costs drop as much as possible, but at the same time we all need to keep investing in nuclear too (and build new generations of reactors that reduce further the risk of meltdown).
        • JoeAltmaier 7y ago
          Renewable (other than hydro) is 4% I think. Its easy for the public to be panicked by old unsafe plants causing pollution. They should have voted for new plants to replace the old ones. It was a choice, probably emotional. As is the reluctance to move forward with renewable nuclear plants as our energy future.
      • 292355744930110 7y ago
        More people die from wind power than die from nuclear. Solar uses vastly more land area than nuclear, a major problem for an island nation like Japan. The varying power output from sources like solar/wind make them infeasible for a full grid.
        • 7952 7y ago
          If nuclear killed the same number of people as wind it would still be safe enough. So I am not sure that is a good reason for choosing nuclear over wind. Both energy sources have extremely small numbers. Also, the deaths are workers. People who understand and have consented to the risk. And who can take some responsibility for their own safety. The death of a random member of the public is morally different.
      • nickik 7y ago
        > Japan should move to wind, solar, and batteries rapidly instead of coal Maybe they should have moved the people to fantasy land
    • 7952 7y ago
      Trust is about more than casualty figures. The industry did not promise low death rates following a meltdown. They promised no melt downs ever. They promised total safety again and again and again. I think the public are intelligent enough to know that a meltdown must never happen. In the same way that they know that an airline must never run out of fuel. Of course that is going to damage trust.
      • nickik 7y ago
        Nuclear would not even be allowed to operate if they didn't claim to be that safe therefore they have to claim it, and the regulators have to claim it. This is because widespread misinformation about radiation in the population and among politicians. Instead of a rational discussion politicians have abused the public trust by spreading more misinformation and making publicity stuns to keep plants closed even after significant security review and alternatives that are far more damaging.
        • 7952 7y ago
          Even if all that were true a meltdown is still going to damage trust. You like to talk about rationality. But is it really? Do you have a thorough understanding of the model of reactor in question? Or various complex failure modes? Or the dozens of degree level specialisms involved in safety critical aspects? If you don't then you have to rely on a little blind faith. Even an aerospace engineer has to trust when they step on a plane. Breaking that trust is going to damage your industry.
          • nickik 7y ago
            Yes. But if a plane falls in Japan. Germany doesn't stop all planes from flying. At most you look at the specific model and ground that for a while. You do review and try to improve. Nuclear is simply treated differently then anything else. Nuclear in the 'western' exemplary history of safety in the last 40 years and most of these plants have operated without fail for a long time. The failure mode is not actually a mystery in this case and stopping plants where the same failure mode is impossible makes little sense for plants that have proven to run perfectly for 30+ years.