3 ms·

The problem is nuclear advocates can take the poster child for poor management and say it's perfectly safe: > Between 1950 and 2000, there were 21 serious inci

by flukus 7y ago

The problem is nuclear advocates can take the poster child for poor management and say it's perfectly safe: > Between 1950 and 2000, there were 21 serious incidents or accidents involving off-site radiological releases that warranted a rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale, one at level 5, five at level 4 and fifteen at level 3. Additionally during the 1950s and 1960s there were protracted periods of known, deliberate discharges to the atmosphere of plutonium and irradiated uranium oxide particulates.[81] These frequent incidents, together with the large 2005 THORP plant leak which was not detected for nine months, have led some to doubt the effectiveness of the managerial processes and safety culture on the site over the years. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents There's been more than enough problems with nuclear plants that I wouldn't live anywhere near one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accid...

ithkuil 7y ago
On the other hand those events are monitored and taken seriously while other sources of pollution and their long term effects are routinely handwaved by leaders of important countries
roenxi 7y ago
That is what perfectly safe looks like. The poster child for poor management is acceptably safe. The wiki page includes incidents that are paranoid from the perspective of strategy, eg: * "resulted in temporary warnings against swimming in the sea along a 10-mile (16 km) stretch of coast between St. Bees and Eskmeals" * A paperwork issue that was within tolerance of the relevant international standard * "No radiation was released to the environment, and no one was injured by the incident, but because of the large escape of radioactivity to the secondary containment the incident was given an International Nuclear Event Scale level 3 categorisation." 2/3 of those will be INES rated. This is all describing a situation that is substantially safer than most industrial operations I've ever seen. Including many building sites. Try running a building site using granite or a banana plantation with no injuries and no radiation escaping into the surrounding environment; this is a high standard.

by flukus 7y ago

ithkuil 7y ago

On the other hand those events are monitored and taken seriously while other sources of pollution and their long term effects are routinely handwaved by leaders of important countries

roenxi 7y ago

That is what perfectly safe looks like. The poster child for poor management is acceptably safe. The wiki page includes incidents that are paranoid from the perspective of strategy, eg: * "resulted in temporary warnings against swimming in the sea along a 10-mile (16 km) stretch of coast between St. Bees and Eskmeals" * A paperwork issue that was within tolerance of the relevant international standard * "No radiation was released to the environment, and no one was injured by the incident, but because of the large escape of radioactivity to the secondary containment the incident was given an International Nuclear Event Scale level 3 categorisation." 2/3 of those will be INES rated. This is all describing a situation that is substantially safer than most industrial operations I've ever seen. Including many building sites. Try running a building site using granite or a banana plantation with no injuries and no radiation escaping into the surrounding environment; this is a high standard.