4 ms·

I agree. Fukushima proved that even when a nuclear power plant is hit by a massive earthquake and a tsunami (that killed more people than have ever died from nu

by zests 6y ago

I agree. Fukushima proved that even when a nuclear power plant is hit by a massive earthquake and a tsunami (that killed more people than have ever died from nuclear power) the disaster can be managed with few deaths and ill effects. If we should be afraid of nuclear power we should be afraid of a lot more than we currently are. For starters, we should move everyone off of major fault lines.

randallsquared 6y ago
> few deaths I have read that the technically correct number is "zero" deaths. There were, however, deaths from evacuation to avoid the lack of death from radiation.
rbanffy 6y ago
It also shows that if you cut power to the cooling system of a reactor of a very common design, there are no passive systems that can prevent a meltdown.
contravariant 6y ago
Not sure if an irreparable reactor that's to date still leaking radioactive waste water should be used as an example of how well nuclear power plants handle catastrophic failure.
Gwypaas 6y ago
Factor in a cleanup cost of $200 billion, or up $470 billion if actually taking care of the contaminated water [0] and not a single insurance company or reinsurance broker willing is to take on a nuclear plant. I would much rather have that money going to true decentralized renewables and reliable transmission. [0]: https://apnews.com/article/d1b8322355f3f31109dd925900dff200 https://apnews.com/article/d1b8322355f3f31109dd925900dff200
- sjwright 6y ago
  A nuclear reactor well above sea level and on geologically stable ground would have many orders of magnitude less risk than the east coast of Japan. Just because it’s not safe everywhere doesn’t mean it’s not safe anywhere.
- Krasnol 6y ago
  Related: https://www.dw.com/en/japan-to-release-treated-fukushima-water-into-the-sea/a-55292352 https://www.dw.com/en/japan-to-release-treated-fukushima-wat... > Japan to release treated Fukushima water into the sea
- Aachen 6y ago
  I would too, but we're not doing it. That leaves me wondering if maybe we should plan (and commit) to build nuclear up to, say, 50% of our energy need and then start to reduce that when we actually build wind/solar/hydro to replace it. Xor commit to building those renewables instead (concretely: X MWh using renewable technology Y in location Z). Or, heck, use coal and carbon capture (real stuff, not tree planting, preventing emissions elsewhere, or other cheap magic that doesn't actually take the CO2 back out of the air) in case that's the way people want to go. I don't care, just get started already. It's not my choice, I already vote for parties that want to take more action, my energy provider is one that actively builds out renewables, and I don't own an amount of land where even a single solar panel would fit. We can't do this on an individual level so I guess governments will have to decide what goes where. It's up to them, but we can't choose it do neither solution.
marta_morena_28 6y ago
That's a really bad example, giving that this thing will poison the ocean for millennia to come and stopped short just on the brink of becoming the next Chernobyl. If things had just turned out slightly differently, the reactor core could have gone haywire and that would have been the end of it. As it is, this was just dumb luck. Nothing more. If anything, Fukushima has proven (if there was ever any doubt) that there is absolutely nothing, even a high tech nation like Japan can do to deal with a disaster like this. Exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Klinky 6y ago
We should definitely be afraid of misinformed nuclear apologists using an example of a major nuclear meltdown event as a testament to nuclear's safety. Comments like these are why nuclear is not trusted. These kinds of disasters demand respect and sobering retrospectives, not flippant dismissal.
dewey 6y ago
Are you aware of the fact that the problem isn't "solved" yet and they are still frantically building storage tanks to store the thousands of liters per day of contaminated water that gets pumped out of the reactor that is cooled by sea water preventing a boil down? [1] Just a few days it was discussed dumping some of the contaminated water into the sea [2]. While this is underway an army of people is trying to shovel contaminated earth of the whole prefecture into plastic bags and store them in huge piles. I wouldn't call this "few ill effects". [1]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-nuclear-fukushima-labour-insigh-idUSBRE9B415P20131205 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-nuclear-fukushima-l... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-disaster-water-idUSKBN27037O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-disaster-water-idUS...

by zests 6y ago

randallsquared 6y ago

> few deaths I have read that the technically correct number is "zero" deaths. There were, however, deaths from evacuation to avoid the lack of death from radiation.

rbanffy 6y ago

It also shows that if you cut power to the cooling system of a reactor of a very common design, there are no passive systems that can prevent a meltdown.

contravariant 6y ago

Not sure if an irreparable reactor that's to date still leaking radioactive waste water should be used as an example of how well nuclear power plants handle catastrophic failure.

Gwypaas 6y ago

Factor in a cleanup cost of $200 billion, or up $470 billion if actually taking care of the contaminated water [0] and not a single insurance company or reinsurance broker willing is to take on a nuclear plant. I would much rather have that money going to true decentralized renewables and reliable transmission. [0]: https://apnews.com/article/d1b8322355f3f31109dd925900dff200 https://apnews.com/article/d1b8322355f3f31109dd925900dff200

sjwright 6y ago
A nuclear reactor well above sea level and on geologically stable ground would have many orders of magnitude less risk than the east coast of Japan. Just because it’s not safe everywhere doesn’t mean it’s not safe anywhere.
Krasnol 6y ago
Related: https://www.dw.com/en/japan-to-release-treated-fukushima-water-into-the-sea/a-55292352 https://www.dw.com/en/japan-to-release-treated-fukushima-wat... > Japan to release treated Fukushima water into the sea
Aachen 6y ago
I would too, but we're not doing it. That leaves me wondering if maybe we should plan (and commit) to build nuclear up to, say, 50% of our energy need and then start to reduce that when we actually build wind/solar/hydro to replace it. Xor commit to building those renewables instead (concretely: X MWh using renewable technology Y in location Z). Or, heck, use coal and carbon capture (real stuff, not tree planting, preventing emissions elsewhere, or other cheap magic that doesn't actually take the CO2 back out of the air) in case that's the way people want to go. I don't care, just get started already. It's not my choice, I already vote for parties that want to take more action, my energy provider is one that actively builds out renewables, and I don't own an amount of land where even a single solar panel would fit. We can't do this on an individual level so I guess governments will have to decide what goes where. It's up to them, but we can't choose it do neither solution.

marta_morena_28 6y ago

That's a really bad example, giving that this thing will poison the ocean for millennia to come and stopped short just on the brink of becoming the next Chernobyl. If things had just turned out slightly differently, the reactor core could have gone haywire and that would have been the end of it. As it is, this was just dumb luck. Nothing more. If anything, Fukushima has proven (if there was ever any doubt) that there is absolutely nothing, even a high tech nation like Japan can do to deal with a disaster like this. Exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Klinky 6y ago

We should definitely be afraid of misinformed nuclear apologists using an example of a major nuclear meltdown event as a testament to nuclear's safety. Comments like these are why nuclear is not trusted. These kinds of disasters demand respect and sobering retrospectives, not flippant dismissal.

dewey 6y ago

Are you aware of the fact that the problem isn't "solved" yet and they are still frantically building storage tanks to store the thousands of liters per day of contaminated water that gets pumped out of the reactor that is cooled by sea water preventing a boil down? [1] Just a few days it was discussed dumping some of the contaminated water into the sea [2]. While this is underway an army of people is trying to shovel contaminated earth of the whole prefecture into plastic bags and store them in huge piles. I wouldn't call this "few ill effects". [1]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-nuclear-fukushima-labour-insigh-idUSBRE9B415P20131205 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-nuclear-fukushima-l... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-disaster-water-idUSKBN27037O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-disaster-water-idUS...