5 ms·

How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Less than any other power source. To call it waste is even debatable as it is still usable for

How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Less than any other power source. To call it waste is even debatable as it is still usable for energy production, it just costs too much right now. In the future, this may change. Low level and high level nuclear waste are not the same and the high level waste, as done in some countries at cost, could be reprocessed for fuel. In addition, what is the result of 3 mile island? The word disaster comes with a lot of baggage that I would debate doesn't apply, it was an accident without any fatalities. But... it was a set of lessons and they have been applied throughout the industry. That is forgotten. It did have a huge impact to the industry and was a disaster as far as perception goes. Chernobyl was a case of lets turn this reactor to 11 and disable the safeties. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Fukushima should be remembered. It was when we knew better and ignored expert advice. This seems to be the theme of the 21st century though. But even with Fukushima, it took one of the largest earth quakes ever, causing a very very large tsunami, and then it was still working.... but because the experts where ignored and the wall was shorter than it should have been and, most importantly, the generators were not on higher ground it lost power and was able to melt down. Even with that though, only one person has died, and two had radiation burns, plus there is several km by several km of land that cannot be used right now. The sad part is that this was the focus and not the thousands displaced by the tsunami. Solar and Window are doing great, they should be used as much as they can be. Hydro is largely tapped out and small systems are not as effective compared to their impact; even with the fact that rivers form lakes and move on their own. So that leaves sources like nuclear, tidal, and a few others related to the earths energy(whether kinetic or heat) Nuclear has the benefit of having the smallest footprint too.

Klinky 6y ago
>How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Just because someone doesn't kill someone driving recklessly does not excuse their behavior, nor does it mean they won't kill someone next time. The rest of your post seems to be hand waving away serious safety concerns. Chernobyl and Fukishima involved the people who were in charge of the plant making poor decisions. They both played stupid games, and they were not the sole recipient of the stupid prize. Neither of these events were cakewalks for the people affected by them, or the people fighting to prevent an even greater disaster. Dumping ocean water on damaged reactor cores is not standard operating procedure. Lots of uncharted territory in both. It was not sad that a major nuclear meltdown was one of the main focuses of the disaster. Your downplaying of these events is not reassuring. This is why nuclear has a bad image. Very shitty things have happened due to human negligence and they're just hand waved away, as if they won't happen again, but they do happen again, and both of these examples could have been much much worse. >To call it waste is even debatable. Are you volunteering your basement to store it in? Even if it can be reprocessed at some point, ya gotta store it somewhere until then, and that day may never actually come.
- robochat42 6y ago
  The tsunami killed 15,899 people with 6,157 injured and 2,529 people missing and in 2015, 228,863 were still living away from their homes [1]. But that story was completely overshadowed by the Fukishima melt down that killed 1 person because anti-nuclear stories are media catnip. It also led Germany to commit fully to the shutdown of it's nuclear plants and a 2019 article found that the increase in air pollution will kill 1100 people a year and an increase in C02 of 36.2 megatons per year. So where is the real disaster? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#German... [3] Jarvis, Stephen; Deschenes, Olivier; Jha, Akshaya (December 2019). "The Private and External Costs of Germany's Nuclear Phase-Out" (PDF). National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA: w26598. doi:10.3386/w26598.
  - Klinky 6y ago
    Again, your dismal of the seriousness of a nuclear meltdown is not helping your argument. >So where is the real disaster? It was Fukushima, which resulted in more loss of trust for nuclear energy. It seems you're more angry at the media for covering a nuclear meltdown, than you are at the operators rolling the dice and making huge errors in their management of the plant. The lame stream media didn't cause the plant to meltdown, that was TEPCOs own hubris and blind ignorance.
- beached_whale 6y ago
  The things that actually kill people should get more attention, yes. It was a chain of failures that started years ago and we ignored the people telling us otherwise. But even then, it took a lot to put it in a situation like this. As for my basement, no thanks. That's just stupid. People are so scared about things that cannot hurt them that they just say no instead of saying do it correctly without cutting corners. Verify it is done correctly. Nuclear waste storage isn't a bunch of green barrels hastily piled up with green ooze making Ninja Turtles. It's engineered concrete vessels that can survive without leaking during transport accidents. And then the tolerances have been increased. Then they are put deep down into the earth below the water table, several km below the surface, in geologically stable areas. Even then, they plan for failures and how to mitigate them. Layers of protection. These are the consultations going on in Canada right now, and people freaking over it. In the mean time it has been above group in vessels for decades next to the great lakes.
funcDropShadow 6y ago
> How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? That is complicated to assess, how do you account for the indirect and long-term fatalities or illnesses? E.g. here in Germany's south east (bavaria), every hunted boar is still tested whether it contains safe levels of radioactivity. Chernobyl was 34 years ago, but it still is a problem for food safety several thousands of kilometers away from the place of the accident.
jnxx 6y ago
> In addition, what is the result of 3 mile island? The word disaster comes with a lot of baggage that I would debate doesn't apply, it was an accident without any fatalities. In the Harrisburg accident, the core had a melt-down, and molten uranium was forming layers at the bottom of the vessel. Water had been being cracked into oxygen and hydrogen by the intense heat. This process was stopped little time before the vessel would have blown up from overpressure. It would also have been possible that the layering of Uranium in the vessel would have become super-critical with the result of the reactor literally exploding. And this would definitively have had consequences comparable to Chernobyl. This is stuff which isn't well-known outside of expert circles. During my studies, I read about it in an article in a journal of the nuclear power industry... this must have been between 1991 and 1995, I think. Another huge problem which Fukoshima exposed is that not only the active reactor core must be subject to cooling at all times, in order to be safe, but also cooling basins for spent fuel with remaining radioactivity. And they should also be inside safe containments (that is, protected from airplane crashes, and so on). I think that no reactor built in the West before 2009 has adequate protections against that type of problem. And to add, in France there is at least one reactor which is built directly at the shore of the Atlantic. It is probably not safe against major Tsunamis. The general problem is that nuclear is a very high risk, low probability technology. Protecting against that risk costs lots of money, which makes it uncompetitive. The financial pressures in corporations lead again and again to the result that safety measures are skipped. And in addition, it is inhumanely hard to predict and plan to cope with all possible risks.
- beached_whale 6y ago
  My understand is that with the Fukushima Daiichi incident, we knew this was a possibility. Managers thought they could manage the risk, because there was a likelihood that it would not flood during their watch. I don't know how organize to get around that behavior though
- idlewan 6y ago
  I've never heard of a tsunami on that side of the Atlantic. At least none are listed there, regarding the french Atlantic coast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis_in_Europe Does it matter if the one french reactor at the shore of the Atlantic wasn't safe against tsunamis?

Klinky 6y ago

>How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Just because someone doesn't kill someone driving recklessly does not excuse their behavior, nor does it mean they won't kill someone next time. The rest of your post seems to be hand waving away serious safety concerns. Chernobyl and Fukishima involved the people who were in charge of the plant making poor decisions. They both played stupid games, and they were not the sole recipient of the stupid prize. Neither of these events were cakewalks for the people affected by them, or the people fighting to prevent an even greater disaster. Dumping ocean water on damaged reactor cores is not standard operating procedure. Lots of uncharted territory in both. It was not sad that a major nuclear meltdown was one of the main focuses of the disaster. Your downplaying of these events is not reassuring. This is why nuclear has a bad image. Very shitty things have happened due to human negligence and they're just hand waved away, as if they won't happen again, but they do happen again, and both of these examples could have been much much worse. >To call it waste is even debatable. Are you volunteering your basement to store it in? Even if it can be reprocessed at some point, ya gotta store it somewhere until then, and that day may never actually come.

robochat42 6y ago
The tsunami killed 15,899 people with 6,157 injured and 2,529 people missing and in 2015, 228,863 were still living away from their homes [1]. But that story was completely overshadowed by the Fukishima melt down that killed 1 person because anti-nuclear stories are media catnip. It also led Germany to commit fully to the shutdown of it's nuclear plants and a 2019 article found that the increase in air pollution will kill 1100 people a year and an increase in C02 of 36.2 megatons per year. So where is the real disaster? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#German... [3] Jarvis, Stephen; Deschenes, Olivier; Jha, Akshaya (December 2019). "The Private and External Costs of Germany's Nuclear Phase-Out" (PDF). National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA: w26598. doi:10.3386/w26598.
- Klinky 6y ago
  Again, your dismal of the seriousness of a nuclear meltdown is not helping your argument. >So where is the real disaster? It was Fukushima, which resulted in more loss of trust for nuclear energy. It seems you're more angry at the media for covering a nuclear meltdown, than you are at the operators rolling the dice and making huge errors in their management of the plant. The lame stream media didn't cause the plant to meltdown, that was TEPCOs own hubris and blind ignorance.
beached_whale 6y ago
The things that actually kill people should get more attention, yes. It was a chain of failures that started years ago and we ignored the people telling us otherwise. But even then, it took a lot to put it in a situation like this. As for my basement, no thanks. That's just stupid. People are so scared about things that cannot hurt them that they just say no instead of saying do it correctly without cutting corners. Verify it is done correctly. Nuclear waste storage isn't a bunch of green barrels hastily piled up with green ooze making Ninja Turtles. It's engineered concrete vessels that can survive without leaking during transport accidents. And then the tolerances have been increased. Then they are put deep down into the earth below the water table, several km below the surface, in geologically stable areas. Even then, they plan for failures and how to mitigate them. Layers of protection. These are the consultations going on in Canada right now, and people freaking over it. In the mean time it has been above group in vessels for decades next to the great lakes.

funcDropShadow 6y ago

> How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? That is complicated to assess, how do you account for the indirect and long-term fatalities or illnesses? E.g. here in Germany's south east (bavaria), every hunted boar is still tested whether it contains safe levels of radioactivity. Chernobyl was 34 years ago, but it still is a problem for food safety several thousands of kilometers away from the place of the accident.

jnxx 6y ago

> In addition, what is the result of 3 mile island? The word disaster comes with a lot of baggage that I would debate doesn't apply, it was an accident without any fatalities. In the Harrisburg accident, the core had a melt-down, and molten uranium was forming layers at the bottom of the vessel. Water had been being cracked into oxygen and hydrogen by the intense heat. This process was stopped little time before the vessel would have blown up from overpressure. It would also have been possible that the layering of Uranium in the vessel would have become super-critical with the result of the reactor literally exploding. And this would definitively have had consequences comparable to Chernobyl. This is stuff which isn't well-known outside of expert circles. During my studies, I read about it in an article in a journal of the nuclear power industry... this must have been between 1991 and 1995, I think. Another huge problem which Fukoshima exposed is that not only the active reactor core must be subject to cooling at all times, in order to be safe, but also cooling basins for spent fuel with remaining radioactivity. And they should also be inside safe containments (that is, protected from airplane crashes, and so on). I think that no reactor built in the West before 2009 has adequate protections against that type of problem. And to add, in France there is at least one reactor which is built directly at the shore of the Atlantic. It is probably not safe against major Tsunamis. The general problem is that nuclear is a very high risk, low probability technology. Protecting against that risk costs lots of money, which makes it uncompetitive. The financial pressures in corporations lead again and again to the result that safety measures are skipped. And in addition, it is inhumanely hard to predict and plan to cope with all possible risks.

beached_whale 6y ago
My understand is that with the Fukushima Daiichi incident, we knew this was a possibility. Managers thought they could manage the risk, because there was a likelihood that it would not flood during their watch. I don't know how organize to get around that behavior though
idlewan 6y ago
I've never heard of a tsunami on that side of the Atlantic. At least none are listed there, regarding the french Atlantic coast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis_in_Europe Does it matter if the one french reactor at the shore of the Atlantic wasn't safe against tsunamis?