5 ms·

I guess you are right, but it's just as dishonest to present the situation as completely out of control and use Fukushima as an excuse to paint nuclear power as

I guess you are right, but it's just as dishonest to present the situation as completely out of control and use Fukushima as an excuse to paint nuclear power as completely unsafe and dangerous. Which is what mainstream media has been mostly doing.

paganel 16y ago
> an excuse to paint nuclear power as completely unsafe and dangerous 50 people sacrificing their lives so that anything even shittier would not happen "is safe and not dangerous"? I fail to imagine what you really find "unsafe and dangerous".
- rimantas 16y ago
  Pretty much every other energy source is more dangerous than nuclear. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener...
  - paganel 16y ago
    Then I guess people are stupid, aren't they, because of all the friends I know none of them would prefer having his/her house close to a nuclear plant, compared to having it close to a coal plant. And what do you know? These stupid people (including me) do have the power to vote, and I sure as hell would vote for nuclear power plants to be closed down were I given the chance to do so.
    - jbri 16y ago
      I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you suggesting that because ignorant people think something is unsafe, that means that it actually is unsafe?
    - paganel 16y ago
      In responding to jbri's comment bellow, as the "Reply" link doesn't show up for me on that one: > Are you suggesting that because ignorant people think something is unsafe, that means that it actually is unsafe? Yeah, this is what I'm saying, but isn't this what web 2.0 people were calling "wisdom of the crowds"? I guess back then it sounded cool, now it's just "return to technocracy" once more.
      - jbri 16y ago
        You can click the "link" button next to the comment header to get a reply box regardless. Regarding this "wisdom of the crowds" crap, does the presence of a lynch mob indicate that someone was actually guilty? If masses of people swear by a medical treatment, does that magically mean it's not a placebo? Crowds are dumb. The only time you want to follow the "wisdom of the crowd" is when the crowd is your marketable commodity.
        paganel 16y ago
        > Crowds are dumb. The only time you want to follow the "wisdom of the crowd" is when the crowd is your marketable commodity. We're settled, then, because this is where we disagree :) I believe in the power of the people of taking decisions for themselves (even if the decisions are dumb), while you suggest than an informed elite should have the upper hand (if I read you correctly). I could go on and on about why I believe in what I said above (maybe the fact that I grew up under an authoritarian regime), but that doesn't belong in here, and I'm pretty sure you have your good reasons for believing in what you said. I guess history will decide.
        khafra 16y ago
        If you're saying that mob rule has the power to irrationally stop nuclear power production, I agree with you. If you're saying this is the way things ought to be, I'm not sure if I agree but I think you have a valid point about the democratic form of government. If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead wrong. I don't think other people here understand which of these arguments you're making, either.
    - krschultz 16y ago
      I live within 5 miles of two nuclear power plants and over 10 navy nuclear reactors. It doesn't bother me one bit. I'm actually thinking of moving closer to one of the power plants because rent is a little cheaper because people like you are irrationally afraid of it. Look at Japan, right now 10,000 people are dead from a tsunamai/earthquake double punch and you are worried about the nuclear reactor? The one person killed in the reactor was killed by a crane falling, that could have happened at any industrial complex in an earthquake. There have been a few cases of radiation exposure, but I gaurentee you there where also some guys killed in the refineries that blew up. Not to mention only a few months ago we had a dozen guys die when an oil rig blew up. You need to put it in perspective and get a sense of scale.
    - mediacrisis 16y ago
      In the 20 years I've lived by a nuclear power plant, nothing has gone wrong. The coal plant two counties over has had two major explosions, resulting in dozens of deaths, hundreds of injuries, and an exorbitant amount of property damage. So if we're going off of anecdotal evidence here, I'll take nuclear power. The closer the better.
    - thingie 16y ago
      So, you would prefer living near tens of square miles of moon-like wasteland created by ever-growing surface coal mines, eventually even having your house demolished to allow the mine grow more again, in order to feed that power plant? In a country like this, with smoking power plants nearby: http://krajina.venku.cz/exkur2a/ex2a-01a.htm http://krajina.venku.cz/exkur2a/ex2a-01a.htm Or rather just tolerate this: http://www.vyletnik.cz/images/profily/users/1969/jaderna-elektrarna-temelin-informacni-centrum-390.jpg http://www.vyletnik.cz/images/profily/users/1969/jaderna-ele... (Please note that these images are very real, and we're going to need to extend either the mines or build some new nuclear plants, at least locally, in the Czech republic.)
- hartror 16y ago
  Who said they were sacrificing their lives, the plant workers are well prepared, equipped and drilled for this.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  He's right, if you look broadly at statistics rather than anecdotes that you can count on the thumb of one hand.
  - fremdkraft 16y ago
    The problem with these statistics is that you don't really know how many people died of seemingly unrelated diseases while exposure to (increased) radiation has triggered or magnified its development. I'm not trying to blame radiation for everything. Just pointing out it's likely that these statistics do not convey the complete picture.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  What people are you talking about?
  - paganel 16y ago
    > What people are you talking about? These: http://streaming.tepco.co.jp/tepco_people/index-j.html http://streaming.tepco.co.jp/tepco_people/index-j.html From here: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_explosions_reported_at_reactor_2/c1kqp4g http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_ex...
    - GHFigs 16y ago
      I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be concluding from this. The first link is just a list of profiles/interviews with various employees of the company (the newest being over a year old). Strictly speaking, it's possible that some of them are the same people working at the site at present, but this is a company with (according to the site) over 15,000 employees. That nobody on Reddit even bothered to run the site through an automatic translator is telling. But more to the point, there is no indication of "people sacrificing their lives" unless you count the extremely hyperbolic assumption that everybody working at the site is automatically doomed.
      - paganel 16y ago
        > I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be concluding from this. A day after the reddit comment the NyTimes had a front-page article on them: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16workers.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16workers.html . The general tone of the article and of the people commenting on the article was that of "sacrifice", i.e. people putting their lives on the line for the benefits of the greater community. Updated: More about it from here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/japan-tsunami/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503051&objectid=10712802 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/japan-tsunami/news/article.cfm?c_i...): > David Richardson, a professor of epidemiology at the university of North Carolina who has studied the long-term health risks for nuclear plant workers, told the BBC those at Fukushima would receive in an hour the same amount of radiation a US nuclear worker is exposed over an entire career. To a non-specialist like me that sounds like "sacrifice".

paganel 16y ago

> an excuse to paint nuclear power as completely unsafe and dangerous 50 people sacrificing their lives so that anything even shittier would not happen "is safe and not dangerous"? I fail to imagine what you really find "unsafe and dangerous".

rimantas 16y ago
Pretty much every other energy source is more dangerous than nuclear. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener...
- paganel 16y ago
  Then I guess people are stupid, aren't they, because of all the friends I know none of them would prefer having his/her house close to a nuclear plant, compared to having it close to a coal plant. And what do you know? These stupid people (including me) do have the power to vote, and I sure as hell would vote for nuclear power plants to be closed down were I given the chance to do so.
  - jbri 16y ago
    I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you suggesting that because ignorant people think something is unsafe, that means that it actually is unsafe?
  - paganel 16y ago
    In responding to jbri's comment bellow, as the "Reply" link doesn't show up for me on that one: > Are you suggesting that because ignorant people think something is unsafe, that means that it actually is unsafe? Yeah, this is what I'm saying, but isn't this what web 2.0 people were calling "wisdom of the crowds"? I guess back then it sounded cool, now it's just "return to technocracy" once more.
    - jbri 16y ago
      You can click the "link" button next to the comment header to get a reply box regardless. Regarding this "wisdom of the crowds" crap, does the presence of a lynch mob indicate that someone was actually guilty? If masses of people swear by a medical treatment, does that magically mean it's not a placebo? Crowds are dumb. The only time you want to follow the "wisdom of the crowd" is when the crowd is your marketable commodity.
      - paganel 16y ago
        > Crowds are dumb. The only time you want to follow the "wisdom of the crowd" is when the crowd is your marketable commodity. We're settled, then, because this is where we disagree :) I believe in the power of the people of taking decisions for themselves (even if the decisions are dumb), while you suggest than an informed elite should have the upper hand (if I read you correctly). I could go on and on about why I believe in what I said above (maybe the fact that I grew up under an authoritarian regime), but that doesn't belong in here, and I'm pretty sure you have your good reasons for believing in what you said. I guess history will decide.
        khafra 16y ago
        If you're saying that mob rule has the power to irrationally stop nuclear power production, I agree with you. If you're saying this is the way things ought to be, I'm not sure if I agree but I think you have a valid point about the democratic form of government. If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead wrong. I don't think other people here understand which of these arguments you're making, either.
  - krschultz 16y ago
    I live within 5 miles of two nuclear power plants and over 10 navy nuclear reactors. It doesn't bother me one bit. I'm actually thinking of moving closer to one of the power plants because rent is a little cheaper because people like you are irrationally afraid of it. Look at Japan, right now 10,000 people are dead from a tsunamai/earthquake double punch and you are worried about the nuclear reactor? The one person killed in the reactor was killed by a crane falling, that could have happened at any industrial complex in an earthquake. There have been a few cases of radiation exposure, but I gaurentee you there where also some guys killed in the refineries that blew up. Not to mention only a few months ago we had a dozen guys die when an oil rig blew up. You need to put it in perspective and get a sense of scale.
  - mediacrisis 16y ago
    In the 20 years I've lived by a nuclear power plant, nothing has gone wrong. The coal plant two counties over has had two major explosions, resulting in dozens of deaths, hundreds of injuries, and an exorbitant amount of property damage. So if we're going off of anecdotal evidence here, I'll take nuclear power. The closer the better.
  - thingie 16y ago
    So, you would prefer living near tens of square miles of moon-like wasteland created by ever-growing surface coal mines, eventually even having your house demolished to allow the mine grow more again, in order to feed that power plant? In a country like this, with smoking power plants nearby: http://krajina.venku.cz/exkur2a/ex2a-01a.htm http://krajina.venku.cz/exkur2a/ex2a-01a.htm Or rather just tolerate this: http://www.vyletnik.cz/images/profily/users/1969/jaderna-elektrarna-temelin-informacni-centrum-390.jpg http://www.vyletnik.cz/images/profily/users/1969/jaderna-ele... (Please note that these images are very real, and we're going to need to extend either the mines or build some new nuclear plants, at least locally, in the Czech republic.)
hartror 16y ago
Who said they were sacrificing their lives, the plant workers are well prepared, equipped and drilled for this.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
He's right, if you look broadly at statistics rather than anecdotes that you can count on the thumb of one hand.
- fremdkraft 16y ago
  The problem with these statistics is that you don't really know how many people died of seemingly unrelated diseases while exposure to (increased) radiation has triggered or magnified its development. I'm not trying to blame radiation for everything. Just pointing out it's likely that these statistics do not convey the complete picture.
GHFigs 16y ago
What people are you talking about?
- paganel 16y ago
  > What people are you talking about? These: http://streaming.tepco.co.jp/tepco_people/index-j.html http://streaming.tepco.co.jp/tepco_people/index-j.html From here: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_explosions_reported_at_reactor_2/c1kqp4g http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_ex...
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be concluding from this. The first link is just a list of profiles/interviews with various employees of the company (the newest being over a year old). Strictly speaking, it's possible that some of them are the same people working at the site at present, but this is a company with (according to the site) over 15,000 employees. That nobody on Reddit even bothered to run the site through an automatic translator is telling. But more to the point, there is no indication of "people sacrificing their lives" unless you count the extremely hyperbolic assumption that everybody working at the site is automatically doomed.
    - paganel 16y ago
      > I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be concluding from this. A day after the reddit comment the NyTimes had a front-page article on them: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16workers.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16workers.html . The general tone of the article and of the people commenting on the article was that of "sacrifice", i.e. people putting their lives on the line for the benefits of the greater community. Updated: More about it from here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/japan-tsunami/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503051&objectid=10712802 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/japan-tsunami/news/article.cfm?c_i...): > David Richardson, a professor of epidemiology at the university of North Carolina who has studied the long-term health risks for nuclear plant workers, told the BBC those at Fukushima would receive in an hour the same amount of radiation a US nuclear worker is exposed over an entire career. To a non-specialist like me that sounds like "sacrifice".