4 ms·

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 fallo

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.
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      How convenient! If the situation hadn't turned out bad, we could have rejoiced the safety of nuclear power. Since things did turn out bad, we'll just brush it aside as ancient technology, nothing to see here, move on. Except there are numerous "ancient" plants in full operation today. Except Japan is one of the most organized, efficient and technically advanced societies on the planet. Most importantly, you fail to address my actual question: why should nuclear doom sayers have to recant their concerns in the event they are mistaken but nuclear cheerleaders do not in the event they are? You and the OP wouldn't answer that question because you have no logical answer.
      - Tycho 16y ago
        We aren't dodging your question, we just think you should be able to grasp the point without further explanations. Firstly, it's not a true binary choice, it's not containment vs non-containment - it's containment vs. vastly varying degrees of non-containment. Secondly, non-containment scenarios will likely settle nothing (unless we have multiple 'mega-Chernobyls' or something, in which case then the proponents of nuclear power should admit they were misled) - the damage caused will be disputed, the value of the damage caused will be disputed, the appropriateness of the safety plans will be disputed, the correctness of the emergency operations will be disputed, the analogy to other plants not at risk from tsunamis/quakes will be disputed, the effectiveness of newer designs will be disputed, it will just go on forever because there will be no significant result. But if the situation blows over without a large number of people being affected by harmful radiation, if the failsafes work despite multiple catastrophes (which almost certainly wouldn't threaten most plants), then the doom sayers really should admit nuclear safety is feasible, if they want to maintain any integrity.
icarus_drowning 16y ago
I think the suggestion is that this represents a pretty 'worst case' scenario-- an old reactor of obsolete design that is dramatically less safe than many modern designs (at least as I understand it)and one of the worst earthquakes on record. If the "no fallout" situation does occur, it seems like a pretty powerful argument on the "pro-nuclear power" side of the debate. And no, I don't suspect the anti nuclear crowd will buy it at all.

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.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    How convenient! If the situation hadn't turned out bad, we could have rejoiced the safety of nuclear power. Since things did turn out bad, we'll just brush it aside as ancient technology, nothing to see here, move on. Except there are numerous "ancient" plants in full operation today. Except Japan is one of the most organized, efficient and technically advanced societies on the planet. Most importantly, you fail to address my actual question: why should nuclear doom sayers have to recant their concerns in the event they are mistaken but nuclear cheerleaders do not in the event they are? You and the OP wouldn't answer that question because you have no logical answer.
    - Tycho 16y ago
      We aren't dodging your question, we just think you should be able to grasp the point without further explanations. Firstly, it's not a true binary choice, it's not containment vs non-containment - it's containment vs. vastly varying degrees of non-containment. Secondly, non-containment scenarios will likely settle nothing (unless we have multiple 'mega-Chernobyls' or something, in which case then the proponents of nuclear power should admit they were misled) - the damage caused will be disputed, the value of the damage caused will be disputed, the appropriateness of the safety plans will be disputed, the correctness of the emergency operations will be disputed, the analogy to other plants not at risk from tsunamis/quakes will be disputed, the effectiveness of newer designs will be disputed, it will just go on forever because there will be no significant result. But if the situation blows over without a large number of people being affected by harmful radiation, if the failsafes work despite multiple catastrophes (which almost certainly wouldn't threaten most plants), then the doom sayers really should admit nuclear safety is feasible, if they want to maintain any integrity.

icarus_drowning 16y ago

I think the suggestion is that this represents a pretty 'worst case' scenario-- an old reactor of obsolete design that is dramatically less safe than many modern designs (at least as I understand it)and one of the worst earthquakes on record. If the "no fallout" situation does occur, it seems like a pretty powerful argument on the "pro-nuclear power" side of the debate. And no, I don't suspect the anti nuclear crowd will buy it at all.