4 ms·

Is this the 'ultimate test' for nuclear power? And if so, and if the Japanese escape unscathed from radiation, will the global anti-nuclear contingent give cred

by Tycho 16y ago

Is this the 'ultimate test' for nuclear power? And if so, and if the Japanese escape unscathed from radiation, will the global anti-nuclear contingent give credit where credit's due?

Jach 16y ago
What do you think? Thorium has been suggested for quite some time yet it's not going anywhere really fast.
OpieCunningham 16y ago
And the inverse, if the Japanese don't escape unscathed from radiation, will the global pro-nuclear contingent become anti-nuclear? I suspect the answer to both questions is no. Firstly because unscathed is vague: 0% radiological impact? 3% impact? How much damage is allowed in the definition of unscathed? Secondly because the true impact will be debated, challenged and studied for decades. And thirdly because the pro contingent will insist that with knowledge gained from this failure, we now have enough knowledge to safely implement nuclear power.
- Tycho 16y ago
  Well I was thinking in terms of 'completely unscathed' as in the failsafes etc. ultimately did their job and the radiactivity was contained (or kept within normal operating limits). If there is 'some' fallout, then of course the debate will rage on indefinitely. Which is why I did not suggest the converse position that you put forward.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that if there is no fallout, the anti-nuclear contingent should accept they are basically wrong, but if there is fallout, the pro-nuclear contingent should continue to fight (i.e. the debate will rage on)? Why should one outcome produce a change in behavior from one crowd, but the opposite outcome should not produce a change in behavior from the opposite crowd?
    - Tycho 16y ago
      If there is 'some' fallout, then it will be on a spectrum which will be interpreted very subjectively by different groups. However if there is 'no' fallout, then there is no spectrum, and no room for subjectivity. Those against nuclear power would have to admit this whole episode is not ammunition for their argument. Until 'the results are in' there will continue to be a lot of nuclear apocalypse sensationalism, I'd just like to see it retracted afterwards when/if it turns out to be unfounded. Put another way, we already know that it's possible to have nuclear accidents, what we don't know is whether it's possible for nuclear facilities to withstand major disasters with no such accident occurring. If that's the outcome, then to ignore it would be sort of like a type 1 error.
      - OpieCunningham 16y ago
        I'll put aside the fact that before you had even posted your original comment, the situation was already at the stage of debatable fallout. Until the results are in there will also continue to be a lot of nuclear-is-perfectly-safe sensationalism (in the past hour I saw a couple of them on CNN). Do you expect and/or hope for retractions on those wildly optimistic statements by "experts" if there is "some" fallout, as you'd like to see in the reverse scenario? If so, I suspect you won't get them, though it does not really appear you'd be looking for them anyway. Additionally, it's not clear to me why one case where there are no adverse affects (again, ignoring the fact that there are already adverse affects) is of monumental importance (a type 1 error), but the numerous cases of historic failures are not valid considerations in the same degree. Put another way, why should the hypothetical of a positive outcome of this situation have any more weight than the negative outcomes of numerous previous situations?
        chc 16y ago
        Anecdotes of how things happened long ago are less relevant than this incident. With the methodology you're proposing, we'd have to conclude that modern medicine doesn't work because medicine had such a horrible track record in the Middle Ages. Also, "safe" is relative. Walking down the sidewalk in a good neighborhood is generally considered safe, but it is dangerous relative to sitting in a fortified bunker. If the impact is several orders of magnitude less than we'd expect from, say, coal, then we can say this was very safe indeed.
whyenot 16y ago
They just evacuated 170,000 people. They may be able to cool down the reactor safely, but there is no chance they will escape from this "unscathed."
mquander 16y ago
If it doesn't do any good this time, will the global contingent of people who continually and arbitrarily divide the world into static, irreconcilably opposed groups of people do it again anyway in the next discussion?
seanalltogether 16y ago
I don't think so, they're already labeling this the 3rd worst nuclear power disaster on news networks.
- Gimpson 16y ago
  I was very surprised when I read up on Three Mile Island to find that the failure didn't actually result in any loss of life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident It seems that if Fukushima stays the third worst disaster we'll be in pretty good shape; Nobody was even killed at Three Mile Island. For some perspective, the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion killed eight people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosi...
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/tmi.htm http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/tmi.htm Quote: A new analysis of health statistics in the region conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project has, however, found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the first two years after the Three Mile Island accident in Dauphin and surrounding counties. http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb97/wing.html http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb97/wing.html Quote: Exposure to high doses of radiation shortly after the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island may have increased cancer among Pennsylvanians downwind of the plant, scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill say.
    - Natsu 16y ago
      Is there a reason why you didn't quote the other part of the article? "Various studies on health effects, including a 2002 study conducted by the University of Pittsburgh, have determined the average radiation dose to individuals near Three Mile Island at the time of the meltdown was about 1 millirem - much less than the average, annual, natural background dose for residents of the central Pennsylvania region. Twenty-five years later, there has been no significant rise in cancer deaths among residents living near the Three Mile Island site." Also, that analysis of health statistics makes no claim of causality that I can find. There could be any number of other explanations, particularly when we know that radiation exposure is linked to cancer and there was no rise in the cancer rates. There's no explanation of how the time frame of two years came about, either, unless they can link it to the half-life of something or something like that.

by Tycho 16y ago

Is this the 'ultimate test' for nuclear power? And if so, and if the Japanese escape unscathed from radiation, will the global anti-nuclear contingent give credit where credit's due?

Jach 16y ago

What do you think? Thorium has been suggested for quite some time yet it's not going anywhere really fast.

OpieCunningham 16y ago

And the inverse, if the Japanese don't escape unscathed from radiation, will the global pro-nuclear contingent become anti-nuclear? I suspect the answer to both questions is no. Firstly because unscathed is vague: 0% radiological impact? 3% impact? How much damage is allowed in the definition of unscathed? Secondly because the true impact will be debated, challenged and studied for decades. And thirdly because the pro contingent will insist that with knowledge gained from this failure, we now have enough knowledge to safely implement nuclear power.

Tycho 16y ago
Well I was thinking in terms of 'completely unscathed' as in the failsafes etc. ultimately did their job and the radiactivity was contained (or kept within normal operating limits). If there is 'some' fallout, then of course the debate will rage on indefinitely. Which is why I did not suggest the converse position that you put forward.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that if there is no fallout, the anti-nuclear contingent should accept they are basically wrong, but if there is fallout, the pro-nuclear contingent should continue to fight (i.e. the debate will rage on)? Why should one outcome produce a change in behavior from one crowd, but the opposite outcome should not produce a change in behavior from the opposite crowd?
  - Tycho 16y ago
    If there is 'some' fallout, then it will be on a spectrum which will be interpreted very subjectively by different groups. However if there is 'no' fallout, then there is no spectrum, and no room for subjectivity. Those against nuclear power would have to admit this whole episode is not ammunition for their argument. Until 'the results are in' there will continue to be a lot of nuclear apocalypse sensationalism, I'd just like to see it retracted afterwards when/if it turns out to be unfounded. Put another way, we already know that it's possible to have nuclear accidents, what we don't know is whether it's possible for nuclear facilities to withstand major disasters with no such accident occurring. If that's the outcome, then to ignore it would be sort of like a type 1 error.
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      I'll put aside the fact that before you had even posted your original comment, the situation was already at the stage of debatable fallout. Until the results are in there will also continue to be a lot of nuclear-is-perfectly-safe sensationalism (in the past hour I saw a couple of them on CNN). Do you expect and/or hope for retractions on those wildly optimistic statements by "experts" if there is "some" fallout, as you'd like to see in the reverse scenario? If so, I suspect you won't get them, though it does not really appear you'd be looking for them anyway. Additionally, it's not clear to me why one case where there are no adverse affects (again, ignoring the fact that there are already adverse affects) is of monumental importance (a type 1 error), but the numerous cases of historic failures are not valid considerations in the same degree. Put another way, why should the hypothetical of a positive outcome of this situation have any more weight than the negative outcomes of numerous previous situations?
      - chc 16y ago
        Anecdotes of how things happened long ago are less relevant than this incident. With the methodology you're proposing, we'd have to conclude that modern medicine doesn't work because medicine had such a horrible track record in the Middle Ages. Also, "safe" is relative. Walking down the sidewalk in a good neighborhood is generally considered safe, but it is dangerous relative to sitting in a fortified bunker. If the impact is several orders of magnitude less than we'd expect from, say, coal, then we can say this was very safe indeed.

whyenot 16y ago

They just evacuated 170,000 people. They may be able to cool down the reactor safely, but there is no chance they will escape from this "unscathed."

mquander 16y ago

If it doesn't do any good this time, will the global contingent of people who continually and arbitrarily divide the world into static, irreconcilably opposed groups of people do it again anyway in the next discussion?

seanalltogether 16y ago

I don't think so, they're already labeling this the 3rd worst nuclear power disaster on news networks.

Gimpson 16y ago
I was very surprised when I read up on Three Mile Island to find that the failure didn't actually result in any loss of life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident It seems that if Fukushima stays the third worst disaster we'll be in pretty good shape; Nobody was even killed at Three Mile Island. For some perspective, the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion killed eight people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosi...
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/tmi.htm http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/tmi.htm Quote: A new analysis of health statistics in the region conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project has, however, found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the first two years after the Three Mile Island accident in Dauphin and surrounding counties. http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb97/wing.html http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb97/wing.html Quote: Exposure to high doses of radiation shortly after the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island may have increased cancer among Pennsylvanians downwind of the plant, scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill say.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    Is there a reason why you didn't quote the other part of the article? "Various studies on health effects, including a 2002 study conducted by the University of Pittsburgh, have determined the average radiation dose to individuals near Three Mile Island at the time of the meltdown was about 1 millirem - much less than the average, annual, natural background dose for residents of the central Pennsylvania region. Twenty-five years later, there has been no significant rise in cancer deaths among residents living near the Three Mile Island site." Also, that analysis of health statistics makes no claim of causality that I can find. There could be any number of other explanations, particularly when we know that radiation exposure is linked to cancer and there was no rise in the cancer rates. There's no explanation of how the time frame of two years came about, either, unless they can link it to the half-life of something or something like that.