4 ms·

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 d

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?
  - sukuriant 15y ago
    That is an incredibly question. And I honestly have no idea. I would be interested in a more knowledgable person's thoughts on the matter. If it's you, by all means, please share :) If it's someone else, also please share!
  - icarus_drowning 15y ago
    The real question you should be asking is how economical coal would be if it had the same kind of regulations as nuclear power.
- jsz0 15y ago
  The analogy I've been using is air travel. Everyone knows the risks but we continue to fly anyway because planes just don't crash that often. Driving down the highway, which feels safer, is statistically far more dangerous.
- afterburner 15y ago
  Is coal the only other option? No.
  - beefman 15y ago
    Actually there is no other option. Fission is the only technology that can support present rates of global development for the foreseeable future.
    - afterburner 15y ago
      Nope.
      - beefman 15y ago
        Actually, yep. It will require on the order of 100TW by 2100. http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Projects/Economics.html http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Projects/Economics.html http://www.quora.com/Is-thorium-a-viable-replacement-for-uranium-in-the-US-any-time-soon/answer/Carl-Lumma http://www.quora.com/Is-thorium-a-viable-replacement-for-ura...
        afterburner 15y ago
        I'll give you a hint: renewable and power grid technology are not stuck at where they are now. But they will be if we don't invest in it. Which is less likely if we build lots of present-day fission stations.
        beefman 15y ago
        Thanks for the hint! Here are three for you: * My statement, based on econophysics, remains true for perfect solar or wind collectors. * Stop using the term "renewable". It's antiphysical. * Learn something about fission - we can invest in it too, and there's a factor of 500 on the table.
        15y ago
jrockway 15y ago
Personally, I think this shows us how safe nuclear power can be. The plant was hit with an earthquake many orders of magnitude stronger than it was built to handle. Then it was hit with a tsunami. Then it melted down. All that, and how many people are dead as a consequence of the meltdown? Zero. Wikipedia says: "Major news source reporting at least 2 TEPCO employees confirmed dead from "disaster conditions" following the earthquake.[368] "The two workers, aged 21 and 24, sustained multiple external injuries and were believed to have died from blood loss, TEPCO said. Their bodies were decontaminated as radiation has been spewing from the plant for three weeks." 45 patients were reported dead after the evacuation of a hospital in Futaba. Some of them "were suffering from dehydration because they had not eaten anything for three days"."
- Natsu 15y ago
  I seem to recall hearing that those two died when a crane collapsed, due to the earthquake, but I don't have a source for that at hand.
  - hga 15y ago
    At the other plant where cold shutdowns were achieved, Dai-nii (nii is two, ichi is one), a crane operator was killed by the earthquake. The two at this plant were apparently killed by the tsunami a while later (there were working in a low level of a unit and apparently suffered at minimum fatal trauma).
Duff 15y ago
Atomheads roll out the strawman called coal and car accident statistics and make the baseless claim that no human has been killed as a result of a nuclear power generation, in terms of death per Gigwatt generated. Therefore, any discussion of the downsides of nuclear energy is just a bunch of ignorant rubes who lack an understanding of statistics. If you mention the children born in the Ukraine and Belarus with horrific mutations and short lifespans, it will be either attributed to coal or spun to have nothing to do with the Chernobyl meltdown at all -- maybe the mother was playing with Uranium.

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?
- sukuriant 15y ago
  That is an incredibly question. And I honestly have no idea. I would be interested in a more knowledgable person's thoughts on the matter. If it's you, by all means, please share :) If it's someone else, also please share!
- icarus_drowning 15y ago
  The real question you should be asking is how economical coal would be if it had the same kind of regulations as nuclear power.
jsz0 15y ago
The analogy I've been using is air travel. Everyone knows the risks but we continue to fly anyway because planes just don't crash that often. Driving down the highway, which feels safer, is statistically far more dangerous.
afterburner 15y ago
Is coal the only other option? No.
- beefman 15y ago
  Actually there is no other option. Fission is the only technology that can support present rates of global development for the foreseeable future.
  - afterburner 15y ago
    Nope.
    - beefman 15y ago
      Actually, yep. It will require on the order of 100TW by 2100. http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Projects/Economics.html http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Projects/Economics.html http://www.quora.com/Is-thorium-a-viable-replacement-for-uranium-in-the-US-any-time-soon/answer/Carl-Lumma http://www.quora.com/Is-thorium-a-viable-replacement-for-ura...
      - afterburner 15y ago
        I'll give you a hint: renewable and power grid technology are not stuck at where they are now. But they will be if we don't invest in it. Which is less likely if we build lots of present-day fission stations.
        beefman 15y ago
        Thanks for the hint! Here are three for you: * My statement, based on econophysics, remains true for perfect solar or wind collectors. * Stop using the term "renewable". It's antiphysical. * Learn something about fission - we can invest in it too, and there's a factor of 500 on the table.
        15y ago

jrockway 15y ago

Personally, I think this shows us how safe nuclear power can be. The plant was hit with an earthquake many orders of magnitude stronger than it was built to handle. Then it was hit with a tsunami. Then it melted down. All that, and how many people are dead as a consequence of the meltdown? Zero. Wikipedia says: "Major news source reporting at least 2 TEPCO employees confirmed dead from "disaster conditions" following the earthquake.[368] "The two workers, aged 21 and 24, sustained multiple external injuries and were believed to have died from blood loss, TEPCO said. Their bodies were decontaminated as radiation has been spewing from the plant for three weeks." 45 patients were reported dead after the evacuation of a hospital in Futaba. Some of them "were suffering from dehydration because they had not eaten anything for three days"."

Natsu 15y ago
I seem to recall hearing that those two died when a crane collapsed, due to the earthquake, but I don't have a source for that at hand.
- hga 15y ago
  At the other plant where cold shutdowns were achieved, Dai-nii (nii is two, ichi is one), a crane operator was killed by the earthquake. The two at this plant were apparently killed by the tsunami a while later (there were working in a low level of a unit and apparently suffered at minimum fatal trauma).

Duff 15y ago

Atomheads roll out the strawman called coal and car accident statistics and make the baseless claim that no human has been killed as a result of a nuclear power generation, in terms of death per Gigwatt generated. Therefore, any discussion of the downsides of nuclear energy is just a bunch of ignorant rubes who lack an understanding of statistics. If you mention the children born in the Ukraine and Belarus with horrific mutations and short lifespans, it will be either attributed to coal or spun to have nothing to do with the Chernobyl meltdown at all -- maybe the mother was playing with Uranium.