4 ms·

>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, no

by 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.
- Klinky 6y ago
  > The things that actually kill people should get more attention, yes. Meltdowns don't have the potential to kill? How did you know Fukushima was "no big deal" while it was happening? You didn't. No one knew. It also displaced 154,000 people. I guess that's not newsworthy though. There was actually plenty of coverage of the earthquake and tsunami, which were immediate uncontrollable natural disasters. No one is lobbying for more earthquakes and tsunamis. Fukushima took months to get under control, and was a preventable man-made disaster. >But even then, it took a lot to put it in a situation like this. No it didn't. It took a predicted major earthquake to occur. The earthquake could likely have been weaker and still resulted in a similar outcome. >things that cannot hurt them that they just say no instead of saying do it correctly without cutting corners Why does something that "cannot hurt them" need so much engineering to prevent it from hurting them? This looks like doublespeak. Nuclear power and storage could be done correctly, but it just hasn't been done correctly often enough, making people skeptical of it. It is also extremely costly to engineer these solutions.

by Klinky 6y ago

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.

Klinky 6y ago
> The things that actually kill people should get more attention, yes. Meltdowns don't have the potential to kill? How did you know Fukushima was "no big deal" while it was happening? You didn't. No one knew. It also displaced 154,000 people. I guess that's not newsworthy though. There was actually plenty of coverage of the earthquake and tsunami, which were immediate uncontrollable natural disasters. No one is lobbying for more earthquakes and tsunamis. Fukushima took months to get under control, and was a preventable man-made disaster. >But even then, it took a lot to put it in a situation like this. No it didn't. It took a predicted major earthquake to occur. The earthquake could likely have been weaker and still resulted in a similar outcome. >things that cannot hurt them that they just say no instead of saying do it correctly without cutting corners Why does something that "cannot hurt them" need so much engineering to prevent it from hurting them? This looks like doublespeak. Nuclear power and storage could be done correctly, but it just hasn't been done correctly often enough, making people skeptical of it. It is also extremely costly to engineer these solutions.