5 ms·

Why Fukushima Daiichi won't be another Chernobyl

20 points by michaelchisari 16y ago

alextingle 16y ago
Nuclear power isn't pretty, but it's going to be pretty much a necessity in the coming years. This relatively minor accident has come at a very unfortunate time.
- xlpz 16y ago
  It's amazing that you can know the accident was minor when it's not even over yet. Seems like you are not really using reality to form your opinions.
  - alextingle 16y ago
    So you didn't read the article, then?
    - xlpz 16y ago
      I quote from The Article(tm): "What is the worst-case scenario for Fukushima Daiichi? It's difficult to be definitive, because information is limited and often confused, and the outcome will depend on the decisions the plant's operators take." They don't discard anything, and just because something is less serious than Chernobyl it does not make it "minor". Also, so-called experts have been consistently wrong in estimating things in the past days. Seriously guys, just wait and see for a few days before shouting from the rooftops how amazingly reinforced nuclear power has come out of this. You are not helping anyone. It honestly just seems that you already know that nuclear energy is a must-have, so you are reasoning backwards from there. If the accident was very serious it would call into question your ideas, so it must be minor, even if it's not over yet and some serious shit still could happen in the future. I just can't support this way of reasoning.
      - michaelchisari 16y ago
        just because something is less serious than Chernobyl it does not make it "minor" But that's creating a seriously false dichotomy: Nobody is saying that this situation is "minor", and I most definitely don't think it is, and did not post this to downplay the situation. I posted it because Chernobyl comparisons are like the Godwins Law of nuclear power. Things can be very bad without being comparable to Chernobyl.
        gnosis 16y ago
        "Nobody is saying that this situation is "minor"" Yes they are. Earlier in this very thread, alextingle wrote: "This relatively minor accident has come at a very unfortunate time." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2337966 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2337966 And that's far from the only time this sentiment has been expressed on HN. Lots of pro-nuclear advocates on HN have repeatedly said that the Fukushima accident is minor. This was especially true a few days ago, but even now some are continuing to maintain it's no big deal.
        alextingle 16y ago
        The 2011 Japanese tsunami has killed at least 7000 people. The Chernobyl accident killed up to 4000 people. Problems at the Fukushima power plant are far less severe than Chernobyl (see the article) so they are relatively minor. Or do you feel that a life taken by cancer is worth more than a life taken by drowning??
  - Natsu 16y ago
    The earthquake + tsunami killed something like 5,000 people and counting. How many have died from radiation poisoning or even the hydrogen explosions so far? I'm counting two people missing and some radiation poisoning. We're looking at a substantial risk of further hydrogen explosions until the cooling is stable and a risk of radiation leakage to those nearby. There is a slight risk of radiation further out, but it's unlikely to cause significant harm. So the primary danger is to plant employees and those trying to cool it down or fight fires. It's unlikely to be able to kill large numbers of people, though it's likely that someone will calculate x% increase of cancer * 128M people (all of Japan) and publish that number. But let's count the casualties and weigh them against the 5,000 or so who have died from the earthquake already: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031710-e.html http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031710-e.... Casualty - 2 workers of cooperative firm were injured at the occurrence of the earthquake, and were transported to the hospital. - 1 TEPCO employee who was not able to stand by his own with his hand holding left chest was transported to the hospital by an ambulance. - 1 subcontract worker at important earthquake-proof building was unconscious and transported to the hospital by an ambulance. - The radiation exposure of 1 TEPCO employee, who was working inside the reactor building, exceeded 100mSv and was transported to the hospital. - 2 TEPCO employees felt bad during their operation in the central control rooms of Unit 1 and 2 while wearing full masks, and were transferred to Fukushima Daini Power Station for consultation with a medical advisor. - 4 workers were injured and transported to the hospital after explosive sound and white smoke were confirmed around the Unit 1. - 11 workers were injured and transported to Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station after explosive sound and white smoke were confirmed around the Unit 3.One of the injured workers got medical treatment on March 16th, but the worker reported a flank pain. We required to the offsite center that the worker should be transported to the hospital. After that, the helicopter of JSDF arrived and transported the worker to the FUKUSHIMA Medical University Hospital at 10:56AM - Presence of 2 TEPCO employees at the site is not confirmed.
    - bioh42_2 16y ago
      The earthquake + tsunami killed something like 5,000 people and counting. The absolutely horrific results of the earthquake and tsunami in no way make Fukushima a minor deal. Yes, it has killed MANY fewer people then the tsunami, but that does not make it a minor deal!
- westbywest 16y ago
  Indeed, there are many reasons why this accident will almost certainly not reach the level of devastation which occurred at Chernobyl, many of which relate to the Japanese plant's far superior safety mechanisms and dedication of its operators. However, don't we sell ourselves short with the implication that any nuclear accident of a scale less than Chernobyl is a tolerable accident? Although the radiation released by this latest accident is still well constrained, and the number of persons directly affected is presumed to be rather small, this power plant and very possibly a large section of the shoreline it sits on are expected to become a complete write-off to civilization at large. A massive earthquake+tsunami at a coal-fired, gas-fired, hydroelectric, and even solar/wind/wave-motion power plant would have wrought similar damage, likely even similar casualties. However, those plants could be rebuilt at the same location, and with sturdier construction.
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    The answer is to push for greater regulations, decommissioning of outdated plants (as this reactor was), and a push for better and safer designs. Ultimately, we need to move to solar and wind power, but for the time being, even with this worst case scenario, I think Nuclear is a much safer option than coal or oil. Definitely better than coal, which results in 30,000 deaths a year.
    - Natsu 16y ago
      Solar and wind are based on our solar energy budget, which puts caps on what we can extract. Granted, you can do space-based solar, but that's still mostly sci-fi right now (though I sincerely hope we work it out). I'm not trying to minimize the problems, just to point out that nothing is all that simple, and I absolutely support continued research into all the alternatives, because each energy source has its trade-offs and using the right source in the right place is better than having all of our eggs in one basket.
- sfk 16y ago
  Words are cheap. Go and help the cleanup crews on-site.
tybris 16y ago
Every time I see a "everything will be fine" article, things get worse a few hours later. Please, just sit on your hands, wait, and see. Maybe Chernobyl wasn't actually as bad as it could have been. Maybe Fukushima is going to be a lot worse than expected. Maybe Chernobyl is in the middle of f*ing nowhere. Maybe Fukushima is in one of the most densely populated regions in the world. Who knows? All we know is that there are a few dozen people right now, fighting to prevent what could become one of the biggest man-made disasters in history. Many of them are likely going to die within a few years because of it.
- orblivion 16y ago
  > Many of them are likely going to die within a few years because of it. I don't think we even know that for certain, do we? Seems quite likely but a lot of things about this story end up surprising us.
  - bioh42_2 16y ago
    Seems quite likely but a lot of things about this story end up surprising us. Yes, things surprisingly just keep getting worse, despite optimistic predictions.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  Every time I see a "everything will be fine" article I hardly consider this an "everything will be fine" article.
- Natsu 16y ago
  > All we know is that there are a few dozen people right now, fighting to prevent what could become one of the biggest man-made disasters in history. But how are they going to save the 26,000 people killed by the failure of the Banqiao Dam without time travel? I'm kidding, but don't let anyone fool you: Fukushima Dai-ichi is still dangerous, but only to the people nearby. There's a substantial risk of further hydrogen explosions and radiation spikes that are dangerous to the people nearby. They're very unlikely to affect anyone not in Japan. Cleanup will be a pain. But hearing "OH GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!" constantly in the media is pretty grating for anyone who understands the real, immediate concerns in Japan right now. Yes, the reactor needs cool and the workers are very brave. They probably do risk significant radiation exposure. But meanwhile, there are many people who got swept out to sea, people who are trapped behind blocked roads and who need supplies and people injured from the quake in remote areas who need care. These logistical problems are the real disaster and they're being virtually ignored by anyone outside Japan while all eyes are on the continuing problems at Fukushima Dai-ichi. One good thing, badly under-reported, is how helpful the US Military's logistical support is. And I don't mean just the stuff at Fukushima. Removing rubble from roads and clearing collapsed buildings is not at all glamorous, but a lot of such things need to be done right now.
michaelchisari 16y ago
I posted this before, but I feel it's worth re-iterating: There will never be another Chernobyl. It was a perfect intersection of criminally inadequate design, early-adopter naivete, incompetence, and Murphy's Law. Not least of which was the fact that Chernobyl had no containment (!!), and was running at peak (3200MW) as opposed to Fukushima Daiichi's 5% capacity (25MW). A comparison to Three Mile Island is totally valid, but Chernobyl is literally off the table.
- orblivion 16y ago
  I think we're way past TMI by now right?
- blahblahblah 16y ago
  The statement that "the risk of recriticality is not zero" in the fuel pond of reactor 4 means that a Chernobyl-like event is still on the table with very small but nonzero probability.
borism 16y ago
Yup, it won't be Chernobyl. It will always be Fukushima Daiichi. How the nuclear accident will turn out to be is anyones guess right now though.
bioh42_2 16y ago
I'm getting pretty tired of this meme. Chernobyl was horrific! It happened at a time and in place that did not care much about safety or human lives. The technology was primitive. Safety mechanisms had been turned off. The response to the accident was to send people on a suicide mission while telling everyone else everything was hunky dory. It was a a horrific disaster. How the hell could Fukushima be as bad? And what is the point of all of this anyway? Look, I think we should use a lot more nuclear power, yes despite the fact that I grew up down wind of Chernobyl and with Fukushima still happening, I STILL think we should all drive electric cars that get their electricity from nuclear power. But I want those nuclear plants to as safe as technology can make them. And I welcome higher per kilowatt prices to make this happen. What I don't want is nukes on the cheap, as this particular GE model of reactor appears to have been marketed. And I am really getting sick of the chorus of the last couple of days which I can summarize as: 1. Fukushima is totally under control you guys! 2. Fukushima is not going to melt down you guys! 3. Fukushima is not going to have a total melt down, OK! 4. Chernobyl didn't kill THAT many people. 5. Chernobyl wasn't that bad. 6. The area around Chernobyl is going to be peachy in like another 50 years! 7. Well at least Fukushima can't be as bad Chernobyl! For the love of God, if you want to promote nuclear power do it in a smart way! Explain just how bad and radioactive coal is. Explain all the ways in which modern nuclear can be made safer. And call for more oversight and investment in safety. But please stop trying to downplay Fukushima! Not only does this not help anything, but it actively discredits advocacy for nuclear power!
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  As long as people are comparing it to Chernobyl, we can't have a sane, realistic conversation about nuclear power.
  - r00fus 16y ago
    Which is the whole point of the meme... destroy nuclear's credibility with FUD comparisons. Both anti-nuke environmentalist groups and fossil fuel mega-corps can get cozy with this campaign.
    - 16y ago
orblivion 16y ago
"However, the company operating Fukushima Daiichi has now said that, for the fuel pond at reactor 4, 'the risk of recriticality is not zero', meaning a nuclear chain reaction could restart in the rods. Quite how this has come about is unclear." Whoops, looks like you invalidated half of your article.

Nuclear power isn't pretty, but it's going to be pretty much a necessity in the coming years. This relatively minor accident has come at a very unfortunate time.

xlpz 16y ago
It's amazing that you can know the accident was minor when it's not even over yet. Seems like you are not really using reality to form your opinions.
- alextingle 16y ago
  So you didn't read the article, then?
  - xlpz 16y ago
    I quote from The Article(tm): "What is the worst-case scenario for Fukushima Daiichi? It's difficult to be definitive, because information is limited and often confused, and the outcome will depend on the decisions the plant's operators take." They don't discard anything, and just because something is less serious than Chernobyl it does not make it "minor". Also, so-called experts have been consistently wrong in estimating things in the past days. Seriously guys, just wait and see for a few days before shouting from the rooftops how amazingly reinforced nuclear power has come out of this. You are not helping anyone. It honestly just seems that you already know that nuclear energy is a must-have, so you are reasoning backwards from there. If the accident was very serious it would call into question your ideas, so it must be minor, even if it's not over yet and some serious shit still could happen in the future. I just can't support this way of reasoning.
    - michaelchisari 16y ago
      just because something is less serious than Chernobyl it does not make it "minor" But that's creating a seriously false dichotomy: Nobody is saying that this situation is "minor", and I most definitely don't think it is, and did not post this to downplay the situation. I posted it because Chernobyl comparisons are like the Godwins Law of nuclear power. Things can be very bad without being comparable to Chernobyl.
      - gnosis 16y ago
        "Nobody is saying that this situation is "minor"" Yes they are. Earlier in this very thread, alextingle wrote: "This relatively minor accident has come at a very unfortunate time." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2337966 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2337966 And that's far from the only time this sentiment has been expressed on HN. Lots of pro-nuclear advocates on HN have repeatedly said that the Fukushima accident is minor. This was especially true a few days ago, but even now some are continuing to maintain it's no big deal.
        alextingle 16y ago
        The 2011 Japanese tsunami has killed at least 7000 people. The Chernobyl accident killed up to 4000 people. Problems at the Fukushima power plant are far less severe than Chernobyl (see the article) so they are relatively minor. Or do you feel that a life taken by cancer is worth more than a life taken by drowning??
- Natsu 16y ago
  The earthquake + tsunami killed something like 5,000 people and counting. How many have died from radiation poisoning or even the hydrogen explosions so far? I'm counting two people missing and some radiation poisoning. We're looking at a substantial risk of further hydrogen explosions until the cooling is stable and a risk of radiation leakage to those nearby. There is a slight risk of radiation further out, but it's unlikely to cause significant harm. So the primary danger is to plant employees and those trying to cool it down or fight fires. It's unlikely to be able to kill large numbers of people, though it's likely that someone will calculate x% increase of cancer * 128M people (all of Japan) and publish that number. But let's count the casualties and weigh them against the 5,000 or so who have died from the earthquake already: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031710-e.html http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031710-e.... Casualty - 2 workers of cooperative firm were injured at the occurrence of the earthquake, and were transported to the hospital. - 1 TEPCO employee who was not able to stand by his own with his hand holding left chest was transported to the hospital by an ambulance. - 1 subcontract worker at important earthquake-proof building was unconscious and transported to the hospital by an ambulance. - The radiation exposure of 1 TEPCO employee, who was working inside the reactor building, exceeded 100mSv and was transported to the hospital. - 2 TEPCO employees felt bad during their operation in the central control rooms of Unit 1 and 2 while wearing full masks, and were transferred to Fukushima Daini Power Station for consultation with a medical advisor. - 4 workers were injured and transported to the hospital after explosive sound and white smoke were confirmed around the Unit 1. - 11 workers were injured and transported to Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station after explosive sound and white smoke were confirmed around the Unit 3.One of the injured workers got medical treatment on March 16th, but the worker reported a flank pain. We required to the offsite center that the worker should be transported to the hospital. After that, the helicopter of JSDF arrived and transported the worker to the FUKUSHIMA Medical University Hospital at 10:56AM - Presence of 2 TEPCO employees at the site is not confirmed.
  - bioh42_2 16y ago
    The earthquake + tsunami killed something like 5,000 people and counting. The absolutely horrific results of the earthquake and tsunami in no way make Fukushima a minor deal. Yes, it has killed MANY fewer people then the tsunami, but that does not make it a minor deal!
westbywest 16y ago
Indeed, there are many reasons why this accident will almost certainly not reach the level of devastation which occurred at Chernobyl, many of which relate to the Japanese plant's far superior safety mechanisms and dedication of its operators. However, don't we sell ourselves short with the implication that any nuclear accident of a scale less than Chernobyl is a tolerable accident? Although the radiation released by this latest accident is still well constrained, and the number of persons directly affected is presumed to be rather small, this power plant and very possibly a large section of the shoreline it sits on are expected to become a complete write-off to civilization at large. A massive earthquake+tsunami at a coal-fired, gas-fired, hydroelectric, and even solar/wind/wave-motion power plant would have wrought similar damage, likely even similar casualties. However, those plants could be rebuilt at the same location, and with sturdier construction.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  The answer is to push for greater regulations, decommissioning of outdated plants (as this reactor was), and a push for better and safer designs. Ultimately, we need to move to solar and wind power, but for the time being, even with this worst case scenario, I think Nuclear is a much safer option than coal or oil. Definitely better than coal, which results in 30,000 deaths a year.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    Solar and wind are based on our solar energy budget, which puts caps on what we can extract. Granted, you can do space-based solar, but that's still mostly sci-fi right now (though I sincerely hope we work it out). I'm not trying to minimize the problems, just to point out that nothing is all that simple, and I absolutely support continued research into all the alternatives, because each energy source has its trade-offs and using the right source in the right place is better than having all of our eggs in one basket.
sfk 16y ago
Words are cheap. Go and help the cleanup crews on-site.

tybris 16y ago

Every time I see a "everything will be fine" article, things get worse a few hours later. Please, just sit on your hands, wait, and see. Maybe Chernobyl wasn't actually as bad as it could have been. Maybe Fukushima is going to be a lot worse than expected. Maybe Chernobyl is in the middle of f*ing nowhere. Maybe Fukushima is in one of the most densely populated regions in the world. Who knows? All we know is that there are a few dozen people right now, fighting to prevent what could become one of the biggest man-made disasters in history. Many of them are likely going to die within a few years because of it.

orblivion 16y ago
> Many of them are likely going to die within a few years because of it. I don't think we even know that for certain, do we? Seems quite likely but a lot of things about this story end up surprising us.
- bioh42_2 16y ago
  Seems quite likely but a lot of things about this story end up surprising us. Yes, things surprisingly just keep getting worse, despite optimistic predictions.
michaelchisari 16y ago
Every time I see a "everything will be fine" article I hardly consider this an "everything will be fine" article.
Natsu 16y ago
> All we know is that there are a few dozen people right now, fighting to prevent what could become one of the biggest man-made disasters in history. But how are they going to save the 26,000 people killed by the failure of the Banqiao Dam without time travel? I'm kidding, but don't let anyone fool you: Fukushima Dai-ichi is still dangerous, but only to the people nearby. There's a substantial risk of further hydrogen explosions and radiation spikes that are dangerous to the people nearby. They're very unlikely to affect anyone not in Japan. Cleanup will be a pain. But hearing "OH GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!" constantly in the media is pretty grating for anyone who understands the real, immediate concerns in Japan right now. Yes, the reactor needs cool and the workers are very brave. They probably do risk significant radiation exposure. But meanwhile, there are many people who got swept out to sea, people who are trapped behind blocked roads and who need supplies and people injured from the quake in remote areas who need care. These logistical problems are the real disaster and they're being virtually ignored by anyone outside Japan while all eyes are on the continuing problems at Fukushima Dai-ichi. One good thing, badly under-reported, is how helpful the US Military's logistical support is. And I don't mean just the stuff at Fukushima. Removing rubble from roads and clearing collapsed buildings is not at all glamorous, but a lot of such things need to be done right now.

michaelchisari 16y ago

I posted this before, but I feel it's worth re-iterating: There will never be another Chernobyl. It was a perfect intersection of criminally inadequate design, early-adopter naivete, incompetence, and Murphy's Law. Not least of which was the fact that Chernobyl had no containment (!!), and was running at peak (3200MW) as opposed to Fukushima Daiichi's 5% capacity (25MW). A comparison to Three Mile Island is totally valid, but Chernobyl is literally off the table.

orblivion 16y ago
I think we're way past TMI by now right?
blahblahblah 16y ago
The statement that "the risk of recriticality is not zero" in the fuel pond of reactor 4 means that a Chernobyl-like event is still on the table with very small but nonzero probability.

borism 16y ago

Yup, it won't be Chernobyl. It will always be Fukushima Daiichi. How the nuclear accident will turn out to be is anyones guess right now though.

bioh42_2 16y ago

I'm getting pretty tired of this meme. Chernobyl was horrific! It happened at a time and in place that did not care much about safety or human lives. The technology was primitive. Safety mechanisms had been turned off. The response to the accident was to send people on a suicide mission while telling everyone else everything was hunky dory. It was a a horrific disaster. How the hell could Fukushima be as bad? And what is the point of all of this anyway? Look, I think we should use a lot more nuclear power, yes despite the fact that I grew up down wind of Chernobyl and with Fukushima still happening, I STILL think we should all drive electric cars that get their electricity from nuclear power. But I want those nuclear plants to as safe as technology can make them. And I welcome higher per kilowatt prices to make this happen. What I don't want is nukes on the cheap, as this particular GE model of reactor appears to have been marketed. And I am really getting sick of the chorus of the last couple of days which I can summarize as: 1. Fukushima is totally under control you guys! 2. Fukushima is not going to melt down you guys! 3. Fukushima is not going to have a total melt down, OK! 4. Chernobyl didn't kill THAT many people. 5. Chernobyl wasn't that bad. 6. The area around Chernobyl is going to be peachy in like another 50 years! 7. Well at least Fukushima can't be as bad Chernobyl! For the love of God, if you want to promote nuclear power do it in a smart way! Explain just how bad and radioactive coal is. Explain all the ways in which modern nuclear can be made safer. And call for more oversight and investment in safety. But please stop trying to downplay Fukushima! Not only does this not help anything, but it actively discredits advocacy for nuclear power!

michaelchisari 16y ago
As long as people are comparing it to Chernobyl, we can't have a sane, realistic conversation about nuclear power.
- r00fus 16y ago
  Which is the whole point of the meme... destroy nuclear's credibility with FUD comparisons. Both anti-nuke environmentalist groups and fossil fuel mega-corps can get cozy with this campaign.
  - 16y ago

orblivion 16y ago

"However, the company operating Fukushima Daiichi has now said that, for the fuel pond at reactor 4, 'the risk of recriticality is not zero', meaning a nuclear chain reaction could restart in the rods. Quite how this has come about is unclear." Whoops, looks like you invalidated half of your article.