3 ms·

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 a

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).
  - Tycho 16y ago
    I said 'if the Japanese escape unscathed.' If you're wondering where the 'goalposts' are, it's approximate to disasters that could happen at any other power plant: ie. workers injured/killed, maybe a few civilians hurt. That seems objective enough to me when you're comparing the safety of different power sources. Obviously there can be no 'ultimate, ultimate proof' unless we get a direct line to God, but if you're going to be the person standing on top of the hill saying 'I don't care if you can show nuclear plants can withstand unheard of earthquakes and tsunamis, I don't care if there's 50 years of further research and improvement on those standards, I still wont believe nuclear power is safe. In fact there's pretty much nothing that would sway my assessment of nuclear safety...' then I don't see why anyone should take you seriously. edit: oh, and let's just wait for the clear light of day before we decide what exactly 'the situation' really is/was. I've seen many conflicting and retracted reports so far

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).
- Tycho 16y ago
  I said 'if the Japanese escape unscathed.' If you're wondering where the 'goalposts' are, it's approximate to disasters that could happen at any other power plant: ie. workers injured/killed, maybe a few civilians hurt. That seems objective enough to me when you're comparing the safety of different power sources. Obviously there can be no 'ultimate, ultimate proof' unless we get a direct line to God, but if you're going to be the person standing on top of the hill saying 'I don't care if you can show nuclear plants can withstand unheard of earthquakes and tsunamis, I don't care if there's 50 years of further research and improvement on those standards, I still wont believe nuclear power is safe. In fact there's pretty much nothing that would sway my assessment of nuclear safety...' then I don't see why anyone should take you seriously. edit: oh, and let's just wait for the clear light of day before we decide what exactly 'the situation' really is/was. I've seen many conflicting and retracted reports so far