4 ms·

And Fukushima was built to the requirements of 1970's, not those of today (which are much stronger).

natmaka 7y ago
The plant was active and very well-maintained, and its operator even planned to extend it (2 more reactors). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Reactor_data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe...
- ptaipale 7y ago
  Yes, but the original location of site would not be approved today, precisely because of the risk that actualised in the tsunami (even though it is an extremely rare an unlikely occurrence - a tsunami which caused large-scale devastation where the nuclear plant's problems were just a minor issue compared to the huge loss of life and material damage from tsunami itself).
  - natmaka 7y ago
    Indeed, however it doesn't change much the logical conclusion drawn by many: the risk is not adequately managed, not sufficiently "under control", there are configurations leading to a disaster (dangerous material escaping, especially on a large scale). Even if such disasters are relatively rare (given the reactor.year activity), they periodically happen and many think that any new one may be even more catastrophic. Add to this that many, in the public, now know that not a single insurer or re-insurer accepts to cover nuclear risk. As for the impact on health we will only be able to assess it when the last dangerous waste dispersed by the Fukushima disaster will be innocuous, the last induced-cancer known...
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  That’s what scares me. As far as I know Japan is pretty good at running infrastructure. If even they can’t get it right what will happen if we push nuclear as solution to climate change and less well run countries get a lot of nuclear plants? It’s pretty much guaranteed that some will blow up.
  - natmaka 7y ago
    Exactly. The official explanation after Chernobyl was in substance "the powerplant was of a dubtious design and the operators were dumb and not disciplined". Fukushima is designed by Western corps (GE), built by US and Japanese serious megacorps, and operated by Japanese knowledgeable, very disciplined and service-oriented (rather than vodka-oriented) people.
makomk 7y ago
Yes - and I think it's precisely that increase in regulations that the poster which they were replying to was complaining about, given that the 1970s were the last time nuclear seemed affordable enough to build. I've even seen the odd nuclear proponent on here outright advocating that we return to 1970s-era nuclear regulations.
- ptaipale 7y ago
  For climate and environment, event that would be better than not building nuclear. But we don't need to do it so.

The plant was active and very well-maintained, and its operator even planned to extend it (2 more reactors). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Reactor_data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe...

ptaipale 7y ago
Yes, but the original location of site would not be approved today, precisely because of the risk that actualised in the tsunami (even though it is an extremely rare an unlikely occurrence - a tsunami which caused large-scale devastation where the nuclear plant's problems were just a minor issue compared to the huge loss of life and material damage from tsunami itself).
- natmaka 7y ago
  Indeed, however it doesn't change much the logical conclusion drawn by many: the risk is not adequately managed, not sufficiently "under control", there are configurations leading to a disaster (dangerous material escaping, especially on a large scale). Even if such disasters are relatively rare (given the reactor.year activity), they periodically happen and many think that any new one may be even more catastrophic. Add to this that many, in the public, now know that not a single insurer or re-insurer accepts to cover nuclear risk. As for the impact on health we will only be able to assess it when the last dangerous waste dispersed by the Fukushima disaster will be innocuous, the last induced-cancer known...
Ididntdothis 7y ago
That’s what scares me. As far as I know Japan is pretty good at running infrastructure. If even they can’t get it right what will happen if we push nuclear as solution to climate change and less well run countries get a lot of nuclear plants? It’s pretty much guaranteed that some will blow up.
- natmaka 7y ago
  Exactly. The official explanation after Chernobyl was in substance "the powerplant was of a dubtious design and the operators were dumb and not disciplined". Fukushima is designed by Western corps (GE), built by US and Japanese serious megacorps, and operated by Japanese knowledgeable, very disciplined and service-oriented (rather than vodka-oriented) people.

makomk 7y ago

Yes - and I think it's precisely that increase in regulations that the poster which they were replying to was complaining about, given that the 1970s were the last time nuclear seemed affordable enough to build. I've even seen the odd nuclear proponent on here outright advocating that we return to 1970s-era nuclear regulations.

ptaipale 7y ago
For climate and environment, event that would be better than not building nuclear. But we don't need to do it so.