3 ms·

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 t

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The answer is to push for greater regulations, decommissioning of outdated plants (as this reactor was), and a push for better and safer designs.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.

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The answer is to push for greater regulations, decommissioning of outdated plants (as this reactor was), and a push for better and safer designs.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.