5 ms·

Fukushima was a big influence in the most recent hate on nuclear energy. In laymans views, the fact that a (perceived to be) secure, organized country such as J

Fukushima was a big influence in the most recent hate on nuclear energy. In laymans views, the fact that a (perceived to be) secure, organized country such as Japan had such a terrible nuclear incident, meant that every nuclear plant on the planet was dangerous and we were being lied about. Politicians simply moved along that line. It doesn't matter that coal is worse for the environment. A nuclear incident can cost your head. Climate change? Clearly nobody cares.

Retric 7y ago
Coal and nuclear are already on life support at this point. Nuclear and coal needs a 50 year lifespan to hit current cost estimates. Meanwhile power plants are being shut down early because operating costs are already to high let alone construction costs. This is a worldwide economic situation, with many players hedging their bets but that’s about it.
nexuist 7y ago
One person officially died from Fukushima radiation, and it was a person who worked in the plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
- totetsu 7y ago
  Is it just the number of people that have died that matters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk...
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Even using the No-Threshold model the numbers are tiny (130 globally). And as Wikipedia notes in the opening paragraphs the December 2012 UNSCEAR statement uses polite language to remind everyone that No-Threshold linear is a really stupid model.
    - totetsu 7y ago
      For me, I don't think the huge impact to the lives of the people displaced from the lands that was home to their culture and communities for generations should be overlooked in any discussion of what is acceptable costs of a power generation accident.
    - Retric 7y ago
      No-Threshold linear may actually underestimate the number of cancers produced. Looking at the amount of skin cancer in Australia it’s best modeled as different people have different prior exposure which shifts the individual odds around quite a bit.
      - roenxi 7y ago
        The sun is dosing us with so much energy I can feel my skin getting warm and collect the energy to get useful work out of a small solar panel. It'll burn skin in as few as 15 minutes (ie, skin starts to redden and die) in the Australian summer. I'm unconvinced that is a low dose. Exposure to direct sunlight would be an unacceptable risk in a work environment except we can't figure out how to ban it while still being taken seriously. NTLM is dealing with doses that are far below OH&S limits.
        Retric 7y ago
        It’s a question of received dose. Sitting in an cave you’re getting a lot of thermal energy, but that’s harmless. Where if you’re receiving that same energy in day x-ray’s it’s quickly lethal.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        It bemuses me that some pro-nuclear people want to do away with the LNT assumption, not realizing that a replacement could be even harder on nuclear. If the actual dose/response curve has a steeper slope at very low radiation levels (too low to directly measure the effects) then the health consequences of nuclear accidents could become much worse. And ruling this out would be very difficult.
MertsA 7y ago
This is the saddest misconception that keeps getting trotted out in opposition to nuclear power. People use Fukushima as an example that nuclear power isn't improving in safety, when Fukushima was an old plant around even before Chernobyl. They didn't redesign the plant or substantially alter anything in the wake of Chernobyl. It was built to withstand loss of power, a massive earthquake, and a tsunami all at the same time. The fatal flaw was that when the plant was sited and built, scientific consensus was that a tsunami that large in that area was flat out impossible. As the science improved, no one went back and understood the implications on the design of the seawall that was now known to be inadequate. Fukushima was a failure, and an expensive one at that, but in terms of the death toll almost all of it is solely from evacuation of the surrounding area and only one case of lung cancer that was likely caused by the accident. There were zero cases of acute radiation poisoning.
- ffhhj 7y ago
  "...it will run out of space by 2022, and then they will have to dump radioactive water directly into the Pacific Ocean. It is not known yet how much water would need to be put into the ocean." Yeah, put the dirt under the rug.
  - jml7c5 7y ago
    If all the stored water was dumped in a single year, the population's estimated radiation dose is around 0.02% of yearly background radiation. It's really not a problem. See https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/pdf/20191121_current_status.pdf https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissi...
    - MertsA 7y ago
      Not to mention that the tiny increase is almost a decade of stored water (but not a decade of Tritium coming out of the reactor due to the relatively short half life of tritium). If it was just releasing enough stored water to make room for more untreated water to be processed the level would be even lower. Also unless something has changed wasn't there a plan for injecting the treated water into some stable geologic structure? In which case no radioactive tritium would be released to the environment and by the time the water could possibly permeate out and up to aquifers the tritium would have already decayed. The "dump it in the sea" plan is only on the table because it would be pretty inconsequential, especially in comparison to the standards the fossil fuel industry is held to in regards to naturally occuring radioactive material.
BurningFrog 7y ago
The Fukushima earthquake was the biggest in over 1000 years of known Japanese history, and it hit in the exact area to overwhelm the considerable tsunami walls. Given that no security system can prevent 100% of accidents, that one seems like it's in the allowable error margin to me. The construction flaw where some important machinery ended up under water is less forgivable, sure.

Retric 7y ago

Coal and nuclear are already on life support at this point. Nuclear and coal needs a 50 year lifespan to hit current cost estimates. Meanwhile power plants are being shut down early because operating costs are already to high let alone construction costs. This is a worldwide economic situation, with many players hedging their bets but that’s about it.

nexuist 7y ago

One person officially died from Fukushima radiation, and it was a person who worked in the plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

totetsu 7y ago
Is it just the number of people that have died that matters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk...
- roenxi 7y ago
  Even using the No-Threshold model the numbers are tiny (130 globally). And as Wikipedia notes in the opening paragraphs the December 2012 UNSCEAR statement uses polite language to remind everyone that No-Threshold linear is a really stupid model.
  - totetsu 7y ago
    For me, I don't think the huge impact to the lives of the people displaced from the lands that was home to their culture and communities for generations should be overlooked in any discussion of what is acceptable costs of a power generation accident.
  - Retric 7y ago
    No-Threshold linear may actually underestimate the number of cancers produced. Looking at the amount of skin cancer in Australia it’s best modeled as different people have different prior exposure which shifts the individual odds around quite a bit.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      The sun is dosing us with so much energy I can feel my skin getting warm and collect the energy to get useful work out of a small solar panel. It'll burn skin in as few as 15 minutes (ie, skin starts to redden and die) in the Australian summer. I'm unconvinced that is a low dose. Exposure to direct sunlight would be an unacceptable risk in a work environment except we can't figure out how to ban it while still being taken seriously. NTLM is dealing with doses that are far below OH&S limits.
      - Retric 7y ago
        It’s a question of received dose. Sitting in an cave you’re getting a lot of thermal energy, but that’s harmless. Where if you’re receiving that same energy in day x-ray’s it’s quickly lethal.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      It bemuses me that some pro-nuclear people want to do away with the LNT assumption, not realizing that a replacement could be even harder on nuclear. If the actual dose/response curve has a steeper slope at very low radiation levels (too low to directly measure the effects) then the health consequences of nuclear accidents could become much worse. And ruling this out would be very difficult.

MertsA 7y ago

This is the saddest misconception that keeps getting trotted out in opposition to nuclear power. People use Fukushima as an example that nuclear power isn't improving in safety, when Fukushima was an old plant around even before Chernobyl. They didn't redesign the plant or substantially alter anything in the wake of Chernobyl. It was built to withstand loss of power, a massive earthquake, and a tsunami all at the same time. The fatal flaw was that when the plant was sited and built, scientific consensus was that a tsunami that large in that area was flat out impossible. As the science improved, no one went back and understood the implications on the design of the seawall that was now known to be inadequate. Fukushima was a failure, and an expensive one at that, but in terms of the death toll almost all of it is solely from evacuation of the surrounding area and only one case of lung cancer that was likely caused by the accident. There were zero cases of acute radiation poisoning.

ffhhj 7y ago
"...it will run out of space by 2022, and then they will have to dump radioactive water directly into the Pacific Ocean. It is not known yet how much water would need to be put into the ocean." Yeah, put the dirt under the rug.
- jml7c5 7y ago
  If all the stored water was dumped in a single year, the population's estimated radiation dose is around 0.02% of yearly background radiation. It's really not a problem. See https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/pdf/20191121_current_status.pdf https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissi...
  - MertsA 7y ago
    Not to mention that the tiny increase is almost a decade of stored water (but not a decade of Tritium coming out of the reactor due to the relatively short half life of tritium). If it was just releasing enough stored water to make room for more untreated water to be processed the level would be even lower. Also unless something has changed wasn't there a plan for injecting the treated water into some stable geologic structure? In which case no radioactive tritium would be released to the environment and by the time the water could possibly permeate out and up to aquifers the tritium would have already decayed. The "dump it in the sea" plan is only on the table because it would be pretty inconsequential, especially in comparison to the standards the fossil fuel industry is held to in regards to naturally occuring radioactive material.

BurningFrog 7y ago

The Fukushima earthquake was the biggest in over 1000 years of known Japanese history, and it hit in the exact area to overwhelm the considerable tsunami walls. Given that no security system can prevent 100% of accidents, that one seems like it's in the allowable error margin to me. The construction flaw where some important machinery ended up under water is less forgivable, sure.