5 ms·

A short, but well written article that does a good job of taking on the "full meltdown" hysteria that some news organisations seem to clutch on to. Granted, th

A short, but well written article that does a good job of taking on the "full meltdown" hysteria that some news organisations seem to clutch on to. Granted, the situation at Fukushima isn't good, but "meltdown" seems to trigger the idea of a huge explosion and the scattering of nuclear fallout for miles & miles to much of the general public. PS: As an aside, the dramas in Japan are disappointing, because I'm a strong believer in nuclear power going forward. Misconceptions & a lack of education, fuelled by crisis' like these, don't help the cause.

jbm 15y ago
I find it callous for you to brush aside the suffering of thousands of people by "The situation isn't good". Just because all of Japan hasn't been destroyed doesn't mean that therr hasn't been significant damage done. Lies, corruption/amakudari and incompetence has all been unearthed in the nuclear disaster. In what sense is it hysteria to point this out? (Oddly, I feel the Tsunami disaster itself was handled quite well by the gov't)
- lwat 15y ago
  Suffering of thousands? Because of this nuclear incident? What?
  - jsz0 15y ago
    Thousands of people have been displaced from their homes in the mandatory evacuation area. Displacement is really a horrible thing. It destroys communities and they never fully recover afterwards because people can't or won't return.
stellar678 15y ago
I'm not trying to be snarky, but is your disappointment that it's turning out that nuclear power may not be as safe as we hoped? It seems that this is a valid data point to look at when considering whether or not we should deploy nuclear power more widely. Even if it hadn't happened, from our current vantage point it's obvious that it _can_ happen.
- Qz 15y ago
  'Not as safe as we hoped' is still a million times safer than coal power. You're more likely to die in a car accident. Every single day.
  - jjs 15y ago
    > You're more likely to die in a car accident. Every single day. Eventually you'd run out of lives...
- sukuriant 15y ago
  I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back on what could be a very viable energy source with (relatively) few lives lost/standards of living reduced, compared to some other methods of getting electricity. Is nuclear power perfectly safe? No. Is it safer than coal?
  - elithrar 15y ago
    > I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back on what could be a very viable energy source with (relatively) few lives lost/standards of living reduced, compared to some other methods of getting electricity. Precisely. It's also crisis like Fukushima—using generations-older tech—that impedes development of safer nuclear generation technology (i.e thorium reactors, or even just better light-water reactors). > I find it callous for you to brush aside the suffering of thousands of people by "The situation isn't good". Perhaps I should have used stronger language. The situation is bad, most definitely, and Japan will be reeling from the effects for decades to come. Especially in the immediate area, and more depending on the extent of ground water contamination. I'm just saying that the lack of education about nuclear power prevents us from moving forward with it, when deaths or disasters linked with other forms of power generation don't get the same media attention.
  - blackRust 15y ago
    "Is it safer than coal?" You have to compare casualties by number of people involved in both industries and also compensate for tight regulation. My counter-question: How safe would coal be if it had the same kind of regulations as nuclear power?
forgotusername 15y ago
"meltdown" seems to trigger the idea of a huge explosion and the scattering of nuclear fallout for miles & miles to much of the general public. That's because when fuel makes it through containment and into the water table, this is exactly what happens.
- sorbus 15y ago
  Radioactive material entering the water table causes huge explosions? And nuclear material in the water table falls out of the atmosphere[1]? Bullshit. Are you even paying attention to the claims you're making? [1] Fallout specifically refers to radioactive dust created by an explosion which then falls out of the atmosphere, contaminating the ground - it's radioactive dust, not a radioactive solution.
  - forgotusername 15y ago
    I regretted not editing out that part of the quotation immediately after hitting submit, since I knew that although almost everyone would understand what I meant, there will always be someone who'll call it out in some heated nit-picky reply that ignored the obvious intent of my statement. Thank you, sir.
    - sorbus 15y ago
      You're able to edit comments for an hour after they're originally submitted.

jbm 15y ago

I find it callous for you to brush aside the suffering of thousands of people by "The situation isn't good". Just because all of Japan hasn't been destroyed doesn't mean that therr hasn't been significant damage done. Lies, corruption/amakudari and incompetence has all been unearthed in the nuclear disaster. In what sense is it hysteria to point this out? (Oddly, I feel the Tsunami disaster itself was handled quite well by the gov't)

lwat 15y ago
Suffering of thousands? Because of this nuclear incident? What?
- jsz0 15y ago
  Thousands of people have been displaced from their homes in the mandatory evacuation area. Displacement is really a horrible thing. It destroys communities and they never fully recover afterwards because people can't or won't return.

stellar678 15y ago

I'm not trying to be snarky, but is your disappointment that it's turning out that nuclear power may not be as safe as we hoped? It seems that this is a valid data point to look at when considering whether or not we should deploy nuclear power more widely. Even if it hadn't happened, from our current vantage point it's obvious that it _can_ happen.

Qz 15y ago
'Not as safe as we hoped' is still a million times safer than coal power. You're more likely to die in a car accident. Every single day.
- jjs 15y ago
  > You're more likely to die in a car accident. Every single day. Eventually you'd run out of lives...
sukuriant 15y ago
I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back on what could be a very viable energy source with (relatively) few lives lost/standards of living reduced, compared to some other methods of getting electricity. Is nuclear power perfectly safe? No. Is it safer than coal?
- elithrar 15y ago
  > I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back on what could be a very viable energy source with (relatively) few lives lost/standards of living reduced, compared to some other methods of getting electricity. Precisely. It's also crisis like Fukushima—using generations-older tech—that impedes development of safer nuclear generation technology (i.e thorium reactors, or even just better light-water reactors). > I find it callous for you to brush aside the suffering of thousands of people by "The situation isn't good". Perhaps I should have used stronger language. The situation is bad, most definitely, and Japan will be reeling from the effects for decades to come. Especially in the immediate area, and more depending on the extent of ground water contamination. I'm just saying that the lack of education about nuclear power prevents us from moving forward with it, when deaths or disasters linked with other forms of power generation don't get the same media attention.
- blackRust 15y ago
  "Is it safer than coal?" You have to compare casualties by number of people involved in both industries and also compensate for tight regulation. My counter-question: How safe would coal be if it had the same kind of regulations as nuclear power?

forgotusername 15y ago

"meltdown" seems to trigger the idea of a huge explosion and the scattering of nuclear fallout for miles & miles to much of the general public. That's because when fuel makes it through containment and into the water table, this is exactly what happens.

sorbus 15y ago
Radioactive material entering the water table causes huge explosions? And nuclear material in the water table falls out of the atmosphere[1]? Bullshit. Are you even paying attention to the claims you're making? [1] Fallout specifically refers to radioactive dust created by an explosion which then falls out of the atmosphere, contaminating the ground - it's radioactive dust, not a radioactive solution.
- forgotusername 15y ago
  I regretted not editing out that part of the quotation immediately after hitting submit, since I knew that although almost everyone would understand what I meant, there will always be someone who'll call it out in some heated nit-picky reply that ignored the obvious intent of my statement. Thank you, sir.
  - sorbus 15y ago
    You're able to edit comments for an hour after they're originally submitted.