3 ms·

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 a

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.
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      the doom sayers really should admit nuclear safety is feasible No, they really should not. Firstly, you've moved the goal posts - now safety should be accepted up until a "large number of people become affected by harmful radiation". Originally, your goal posts were set to "Japanese people escape unscathed from radiation". And I suspect the definition of "large" will shift accordingly so that you can maintain your view that nuclear plants are safe enough. You had to shift your goal posts because the glowingly optimistic view from your OP hasn't survived reality. Secondly, if that glowingly optimistic view from your OP had actually come to pass (and now we're operating in a fantasy world), why would anyone consider it more than anecdotal or luck or a combination of factors that are not easily quantifiable and therefore hardly reproducible? And lastly, once again you failed to address the point I have been making. Your position applies equally to both sides. You can't cherry pick and maintain any integrity. It's not that I believe failure in this situation is ultimate proof of the failure of nuclear energy - but it is your OP that success in this situation is ultimate proof of the success of nuclear energy. Your premise is wrong, independent of whether your conclusion is wrong (which I believe it is, but not ultimately because of this situation).

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.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    the doom sayers really should admit nuclear safety is feasible No, they really should not. Firstly, you've moved the goal posts - now safety should be accepted up until a "large number of people become affected by harmful radiation". Originally, your goal posts were set to "Japanese people escape unscathed from radiation". And I suspect the definition of "large" will shift accordingly so that you can maintain your view that nuclear plants are safe enough. You had to shift your goal posts because the glowingly optimistic view from your OP hasn't survived reality. Secondly, if that glowingly optimistic view from your OP had actually come to pass (and now we're operating in a fantasy world), why would anyone consider it more than anecdotal or luck or a combination of factors that are not easily quantifiable and therefore hardly reproducible? And lastly, once again you failed to address the point I have been making. Your position applies equally to both sides. You can't cherry pick and maintain any integrity. It's not that I believe failure in this situation is ultimate proof of the failure of nuclear energy - but it is your OP that success in this situation is ultimate proof of the success of nuclear energy. Your premise is wrong, independent of whether your conclusion is wrong (which I believe it is, but not ultimately because of this situation).