5 ms·

"What about Chernobyl" is usually outright dismissed as being an edge case owing its disaster to the Soviet regime, more concerned over image than safety. The

"What about Chernobyl" is usually outright dismissed as being an edge case owing its disaster to the Soviet regime, more concerned over image than safety. The real important question, as you aluded to, is "What about Fukushima" - a disaster occuring in a rich, western nation, Japan; Japan is a nation generally seen as being on the leading edge of technology. If a disaster can occur in Japan, it can feasibly happen anywhere in the west.

jakehop 6y ago
Of course the probability is never 0,00%. But it is obvious that the Fukushima accident happened due to geological factors. The same power plant would hum away nicely in Germany to this day, where there is little to no seismic activity and none on the scale of what happened in Fukushima.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  But unforeseen factors are always a component of accidents. Otherwise it wouldn't be an accident. Of course boost is planning for this to happen. The point is that it does happen despite planning. It won't happen in the same way in Germany but something else can happen.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    But the problems were very much foreseen! The chief architect of the Fukushima plant tried hard to convince his bosses that the wall which protects the plant is not tall enough to protect against rare but possible huge tsunami waves, but hasn't been heard. He turned out to be right. The plant also had emergency cooling pumps, but the pumps were connected incorrectly. This was unforeseen, I can give you that. In any case, the Fukushima disaster caused one direct human death, or something like that. In general, modern nuclear stations are no less reliable than fossil fuel plants, and only freak accidents, like a major earthquake and a tsunami, or personnel knowingly switching off all safety systems (the Chernobyl case) lead to catastrophic failures. This still can and should be improved upon, by using reactors with inherently self-contained designs, lack of high-pressure components within the reactor, etc.
    - GekkePrutser 6y ago
      That makes it even worse though! If the problems were foreseen but willfully ignored. It goes to show that even in developed countries corruption happens and this is a major liability to nuclear plants. If it can happen there it can happen anywhere. And deaths aren't the only measure of accidents. It also caused major pollution.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Were the builders of Fukushima unaware of the geology of Japan? I would argue that they were aware and still got hit by the risk. I don’t see “well, that specific failure won’t be what gets us in Germany” as especially compelling.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    It’s hard to believe they took it fully into consideration. Or more likely someone just said ‘fuck it, just build it’ at some point. Given the costs involved however, I find it hard to imagine tepco will make the same mistake again in the next 50 years or so.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Your first paragraph is exactly my point. What suggests that the plants being contemplated elsewhere in the world won't be subject to the same "fuck it, just built it" decision-making, whether that's around site safety, engineering, fuel handling, waste disposal, and other topics? (Especially because, at some point, you do have to actually say "judging everything, let's build it" which can look to opponents exactly like "fuck it, just build it".) (Side note: I am pro-nuclear for baseline load in general. I'm also a realist about how likely problems are to repeat/ryhme.)
    - grey-area 6y ago
      They planned for a certain level of tsunami/earthquake, but this particular tsunami exceeded norms. They could have protected against this, but siting it near the coast is desirable for cooling purposes too (and has been helpful in some ways for cleanup as they've been able to dispose of waste in the ocean), so there are conflicting concerns here. Things fail from time to time, if that thing failing is catastrophic, it gets very expensive to ensure 100% reliability.
- de_watcher 6y ago
  Shoved the critical electrical stuff below the sea level... It's not like the reactors have fallen into a sudden volcano.
namanaggarwal 6y ago
Totally unrelated but why the land of rising sun (cannot go east than that) is being called a western nation.
- swilliamsio 6y ago
  Western as in democratic, high income, economically prosperous, broadly supportive of human rights, etc.
  - skrause 6y ago
    A better term for that is "developed country".
    - adamjb 6y ago
      Not really. That implies that a) there's some kind of objective end state for a country and b) they've reached it.
      - yunohn 6y ago
        I definitely don't think "western" was the right term for it.
  - de_watcher 6y ago
    Another chilling moment when I realise that I'm way too old and can perceive slow changes of things (like the meanings of words). Please don't do that.
    - swilliamsio 6y ago
      I highly doubt you are old enough that western did not always have that meaning for the majority of your life. It's a holdover from the Cold War, after all.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  “West” is a vague notion that is neither coherent nor consistent. It’s particularly annoying because it’s named after a geographic concept, even though the selection criteria (as much as it exists) is socio-political. The big giveaway here is that we now consider the great Greek writers as part of the “Western Canon”, while the Greeks and the Romans of the time considered the Greeks to be eastern. Oh and the byzantines are considered mostly considered to be Greek speaking easterners, even though they considered themselves to be Romans and the name “Byzantine Empire” was created long after it fell. It’s a very confusing thing.

jakehop 6y ago

Of course the probability is never 0,00%. But it is obvious that the Fukushima accident happened due to geological factors. The same power plant would hum away nicely in Germany to this day, where there is little to no seismic activity and none on the scale of what happened in Fukushima.

GekkePrutser 6y ago
But unforeseen factors are always a component of accidents. Otherwise it wouldn't be an accident. Of course boost is planning for this to happen. The point is that it does happen despite planning. It won't happen in the same way in Germany but something else can happen.
- nine_k 6y ago
  But the problems were very much foreseen! The chief architect of the Fukushima plant tried hard to convince his bosses that the wall which protects the plant is not tall enough to protect against rare but possible huge tsunami waves, but hasn't been heard. He turned out to be right. The plant also had emergency cooling pumps, but the pumps were connected incorrectly. This was unforeseen, I can give you that. In any case, the Fukushima disaster caused one direct human death, or something like that. In general, modern nuclear stations are no less reliable than fossil fuel plants, and only freak accidents, like a major earthquake and a tsunami, or personnel knowingly switching off all safety systems (the Chernobyl case) lead to catastrophic failures. This still can and should be improved upon, by using reactors with inherently self-contained designs, lack of high-pressure components within the reactor, etc.
  - GekkePrutser 6y ago
    That makes it even worse though! If the problems were foreseen but willfully ignored. It goes to show that even in developed countries corruption happens and this is a major liability to nuclear plants. If it can happen there it can happen anywhere. And deaths aren't the only measure of accidents. It also caused major pollution.
sokoloff 6y ago
Were the builders of Fukushima unaware of the geology of Japan? I would argue that they were aware and still got hit by the risk. I don’t see “well, that specific failure won’t be what gets us in Germany” as especially compelling.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  It’s hard to believe they took it fully into consideration. Or more likely someone just said ‘fuck it, just build it’ at some point. Given the costs involved however, I find it hard to imagine tepco will make the same mistake again in the next 50 years or so.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Your first paragraph is exactly my point. What suggests that the plants being contemplated elsewhere in the world won't be subject to the same "fuck it, just built it" decision-making, whether that's around site safety, engineering, fuel handling, waste disposal, and other topics? (Especially because, at some point, you do have to actually say "judging everything, let's build it" which can look to opponents exactly like "fuck it, just build it".) (Side note: I am pro-nuclear for baseline load in general. I'm also a realist about how likely problems are to repeat/ryhme.)
  - grey-area 6y ago
    They planned for a certain level of tsunami/earthquake, but this particular tsunami exceeded norms. They could have protected against this, but siting it near the coast is desirable for cooling purposes too (and has been helpful in some ways for cleanup as they've been able to dispose of waste in the ocean), so there are conflicting concerns here. Things fail from time to time, if that thing failing is catastrophic, it gets very expensive to ensure 100% reliability.
de_watcher 6y ago
Shoved the critical electrical stuff below the sea level... It's not like the reactors have fallen into a sudden volcano.

namanaggarwal 6y ago

Totally unrelated but why the land of rising sun (cannot go east than that) is being called a western nation.

swilliamsio 6y ago
Western as in democratic, high income, economically prosperous, broadly supportive of human rights, etc.
- skrause 6y ago
  A better term for that is "developed country".
  - adamjb 6y ago
    Not really. That implies that a) there's some kind of objective end state for a country and b) they've reached it.
    - yunohn 6y ago
      I definitely don't think "western" was the right term for it.
- de_watcher 6y ago
  Another chilling moment when I realise that I'm way too old and can perceive slow changes of things (like the meanings of words). Please don't do that.
  - swilliamsio 6y ago
    I highly doubt you are old enough that western did not always have that meaning for the majority of your life. It's a holdover from the Cold War, after all.
ashtonkem 6y ago
“West” is a vague notion that is neither coherent nor consistent. It’s particularly annoying because it’s named after a geographic concept, even though the selection criteria (as much as it exists) is socio-political. The big giveaway here is that we now consider the great Greek writers as part of the “Western Canon”, while the Greeks and the Romans of the time considered the Greeks to be eastern. Oh and the byzantines are considered mostly considered to be Greek speaking easterners, even though they considered themselves to be Romans and the name “Byzantine Empire” was created long after it fell. It’s a very confusing thing.