5 ms·

I recall so many people here asserting absolutely that fukushima wouldn't be a problem at all. Those people should reflect a bit.

by jshen 15y ago

jrockway 15y ago
What's the problem? The reactor melted down and there was no major damage to any "civilian" interests.
- jsz0 15y ago
  With all this radioactive water leaking on and off for the last 2 months, and likely well into the future, it's probably way too early to declare victory. I'm not sure anyone fully understands what impact this might have yet.
  - ajross 15y ago
    Indeed. Chernobyl tossed a plume into the air, which was easily measured, traveled fast, and dispersed within weeks. This thing is in the ground water. It will be, what, months until it's clear where it's going in the aquifer? Years?
- waterlesscloud 15y ago
  Tens of thousands of people still not allowed to return to their homes, with no clear idea when they will be allowed to do so.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - hga 15y ago
    Do understand that's because the situation is not yet fully understood or controlled. These BWR reactors (Units 1-3) and their safety systems, especially the passive ones, are getting their first true test (unlike airplanes, we can't afford to test them to destruction, and Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were both of different design, PWR and the criminal (at least, illegal in the US) RBMK). The situation is not good ... but I'm sure the environmentalists are sure the casualties in Japan from coal electrical plants in Japan and the PRC are much greater (and they're likely right).
- dendory 15y ago
  They still have no idea where the leaked, radioactive water went, and it could find its way to the ocean or underground water sources. I'd say it sure is a potential problem.
- BvS 15y ago
  Tourism just started to become a major source of income for Japan (and is obviously not the only part of the Japanese Economy that has been effected). So besides health concerns it is a problem moneywise.
  - krschultz 15y ago
    Health >>> Economy. And would the tourists really show up in droves when the coastline was demolished for hundreds of miles and tens of thousands of people were killed, if only the powerplant hadn't melted down? I suspect tourism is out either way.
    - hga 15y ago
      On the other hand a good economy allows you to spend resources on health.
- jshen 15y ago
  Here are some things you said before: " But in reality, while not great, failures are accounted for in the design of the reactor, and can be managed. ... The outer containment building is similar; it blows up, but the environment and the reactor core are still both fine. ... Good for selling newspapers, but won't be ending the world just yet." But they weren't fine were they?
lwat 15y ago
How many people died so far? Zero?
- Tangaroa 15y ago
  You won't be able to count. There will be a slight increase in the cancer rate for the next several decades until radiation levels subside to normal. It's like cigarettes. Nobody ever died from smoking a cigarette, but cigarettes have still killed a lot of people.
  - matwood 15y ago
    Similar to living next door to a correctly functioning coal plant? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is... The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants. Or how about eating tuna every day and ingesting the mercury that primarily comes from coal burning for power generation?
    - jshen 15y ago
      No one in this thread has suggested that coal is safer. What I pointed out are the mistakes of the rabid defenders. They should pause, and think more carefully about the things they say. They'll do nuclear power much more good that way.
      - Natsu 15y ago
        > No one in this thread has suggested that coal is safer. But many are more eager to abandon nuclear than coal. I will be fair, however, in saying that at least some of them hope to abandon both. And I will also say that if they can make wind & solar (or whatever else) work, I'm all for it. I believe that nuclear is a good engineering choice, but you can change that opinion by providing better technology.
Duff 15y ago
Oh boy, here comes the ranting about coal and the deadly dangers of roof mounted solar cells and the complete safety of nuclear.
- william42 15y ago
  Let's suppose you have two choices for a particular service--one which causes constant danger, but when it happens, it may not even end up on the local news, and even there, as a footnote, and one which is very unlikely to cause problems, but if it does, it ends up not only as a global news event, but the name of where it happens becomes synonymous with the failure. Which choice is safer? It's the latter, because the latter causes panic, which causes safety to be ratcheted up to ridiculous extents, but nobody notices the former until they go to collect the data, and even then, cognitive bias tends to mean that people still pay attention more to the latter. So, no, it may not be «complete safety», but at this point, it's the safest option.
- pyre 15y ago
  It's an over-reaction to an over-reaction. It's the same deal when people talk about how you're more likely to get hit by lightning than end up in a terrorist attack, yet we spend so much time, money and resources trying to prevent the terrorist attack. People are just trying to put things in perspective since people tend to treat nuclear power like some sort of mysterious spectre that might sneak into your home at night and eat your children.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
pushingbits 15y ago
While I still firmly believe that it is possible to build and run a safe nuclear plant (as far as technology is concerned), I'm not sure anymore whether government is capable of coming up with the right safety regulations and policing them effectively to actually make it happen. And I don't think power companies can be trusted to safely run power plants without oversight. For all I know there are some that are more capable than TEPCO, but the fact that there are companies like TEPCO (and probably many that are even worse) means you need someone to look over their shoulder. I have to admit that prior to Fukushima, human incompetence did not factor into my opinion on nuclear power as much as it now seems it should have. Maybe the IAEA could be brought in on this. They seem to know what they are doing?

I recall so many people here asserting absolutely that fukushima wouldn't be a problem at all. Those people should reflect a bit.

by jshen 15y ago

I recall so many people here asserting absolutely that fukushima wouldn't be a problem at all. Those people should reflect a bit.

jrockway 15y ago

What's the problem? The reactor melted down and there was no major damage to any "civilian" interests.

jsz0 15y ago
With all this radioactive water leaking on and off for the last 2 months, and likely well into the future, it's probably way too early to declare victory. I'm not sure anyone fully understands what impact this might have yet.
- ajross 15y ago
  Indeed. Chernobyl tossed a plume into the air, which was easily measured, traveled fast, and dispersed within weeks. This thing is in the ground water. It will be, what, months until it's clear where it's going in the aquifer? Years?
waterlesscloud 15y ago
Tens of thousands of people still not allowed to return to their homes, with no clear idea when they will be allowed to do so.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- hga 15y ago
  Do understand that's because the situation is not yet fully understood or controlled. These BWR reactors (Units 1-3) and their safety systems, especially the passive ones, are getting their first true test (unlike airplanes, we can't afford to test them to destruction, and Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were both of different design, PWR and the criminal (at least, illegal in the US) RBMK). The situation is not good ... but I'm sure the environmentalists are sure the casualties in Japan from coal electrical plants in Japan and the PRC are much greater (and they're likely right).
dendory 15y ago
They still have no idea where the leaked, radioactive water went, and it could find its way to the ocean or underground water sources. I'd say it sure is a potential problem.
BvS 15y ago
Tourism just started to become a major source of income for Japan (and is obviously not the only part of the Japanese Economy that has been effected). So besides health concerns it is a problem moneywise.
- krschultz 15y ago
  Health >>> Economy. And would the tourists really show up in droves when the coastline was demolished for hundreds of miles and tens of thousands of people were killed, if only the powerplant hadn't melted down? I suspect tourism is out either way.
  - hga 15y ago
    On the other hand a good economy allows you to spend resources on health.
jshen 15y ago
Here are some things you said before: " But in reality, while not great, failures are accounted for in the design of the reactor, and can be managed. ... The outer containment building is similar; it blows up, but the environment and the reactor core are still both fine. ... Good for selling newspapers, but won't be ending the world just yet." But they weren't fine were they?

lwat 15y ago

How many people died so far? Zero?

Tangaroa 15y ago
You won't be able to count. There will be a slight increase in the cancer rate for the next several decades until radiation levels subside to normal. It's like cigarettes. Nobody ever died from smoking a cigarette, but cigarettes have still killed a lot of people.
- matwood 15y ago
  Similar to living next door to a correctly functioning coal plant? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is... The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants. Or how about eating tuna every day and ingesting the mercury that primarily comes from coal burning for power generation?
  - jshen 15y ago
    No one in this thread has suggested that coal is safer. What I pointed out are the mistakes of the rabid defenders. They should pause, and think more carefully about the things they say. They'll do nuclear power much more good that way.
    - Natsu 15y ago
      > No one in this thread has suggested that coal is safer. But many are more eager to abandon nuclear than coal. I will be fair, however, in saying that at least some of them hope to abandon both. And I will also say that if they can make wind & solar (or whatever else) work, I'm all for it. I believe that nuclear is a good engineering choice, but you can change that opinion by providing better technology.

Duff 15y ago

Oh boy, here comes the ranting about coal and the deadly dangers of roof mounted solar cells and the complete safety of nuclear.

william42 15y ago
Let's suppose you have two choices for a particular service--one which causes constant danger, but when it happens, it may not even end up on the local news, and even there, as a footnote, and one which is very unlikely to cause problems, but if it does, it ends up not only as a global news event, but the name of where it happens becomes synonymous with the failure. Which choice is safer? It's the latter, because the latter causes panic, which causes safety to be ratcheted up to ridiculous extents, but nobody notices the former until they go to collect the data, and even then, cognitive bias tends to mean that people still pay attention more to the latter. So, no, it may not be «complete safety», but at this point, it's the safest option.
pyre 15y ago
It's an over-reaction to an over-reaction. It's the same deal when people talk about how you're more likely to get hit by lightning than end up in a terrorist attack, yet we spend so much time, money and resources trying to prevent the terrorist attack. People are just trying to put things in perspective since people tend to treat nuclear power like some sort of mysterious spectre that might sneak into your home at night and eat your children.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

pushingbits 15y ago

While I still firmly believe that it is possible to build and run a safe nuclear plant (as far as technology is concerned), I'm not sure anymore whether government is capable of coming up with the right safety regulations and policing them effectively to actually make it happen. And I don't think power companies can be trusted to safely run power plants without oversight. For all I know there are some that are more capable than TEPCO, but the fact that there are companies like TEPCO (and probably many that are even worse) means you need someone to look over their shoulder. I have to admit that prior to Fukushima, human incompetence did not factor into my opinion on nuclear power as much as it now seems it should have. Maybe the IAEA could be brought in on this. They seem to know what they are doing?