11 ms·

How many people died at Fukushima ? 1 How many people die every year because of coal plants working perfectly normally ? 30 000 in the US alone. See http://sq

by Typhon 15y ago

How many people died at Fukushima ? 1 How many people die every year because of coal plants working perfectly normally ? 30 000 in the US alone. See http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html Nuclear waste is a bigger problem indeed, but using Fukushima as an argument against nuclear is both dishonest and stupid.

ugh 15y ago
Expenses, not deaths, were the topic of discussion.
- roel_v 15y ago
  We're talking full cost accounting and deaths are a large component in that. (well depends on how many deaths there are of course, in coal plants they're a big part).
- alexqgb 15y ago
  Death is the ultimate expense.
Typhon 15y ago
In that case, Fukushima is even less relevant to the discussion.
olaf 15y ago
First, the Fukushima case is not yet closed. Tepco told us today (faz.net), that the three damaged reactors are stiil out of control, at least until end of this year. We will see, what will happen. Second: don't you ignore the risk of how many people _could_ die, in the case of a big disaster? That would have global conequences for quite some days (ironic). Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal), the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power.
- Typhon 15y ago
  >« Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal » Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "normal conditions", people die due to coal, whereas it is not the case with nuclear plant. The reason is that all a nuclear plant releases in the air is water. > « the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power. » You must take into account the odds of a probable disaster, such as an earthquake in Japan, but not the consequences of any disaster. It's just unreasonable to assume an improbable disaster will happen. You end up renouncing any technology by thinking that way. Obviously, Nuclear power plant must be built with security as the main concern. Obviously, a nuclear reactor can be very dangerous. But refusing to use nuclear plants, which are much more efficient than classic ones and a good long-term investment, is idiotic. We're far more likely to die in a car accident than because of radio-activity, or any other disaster that's on television. Yet, noone is suggesting that a country should be "car free". Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.
  - moe 15y ago
    Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants. I'd wager the change of mind will happen rather quickly after the first terrorist crashes a plane into an US nuclear facility.
    - vukk 15y ago
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY
      - moe 15y ago
        Impressive video. However, I wonder if that test would look as good with a real passenger jet. According to wikipedia the empty weight of a Phantom F4 is 30,328 lb. The empty weight of a Boeing 737 is up to 80,000 lb (almost 3x as much). The empty weight of an A380 is 610,000 lb (20 times as much).

by Typhon 15y ago

ugh 15y ago

Expenses, not deaths, were the topic of discussion.

roel_v 15y ago
We're talking full cost accounting and deaths are a large component in that. (well depends on how many deaths there are of course, in coal plants they're a big part).
alexqgb 15y ago
Death is the ultimate expense.

Typhon 15y ago

In that case, Fukushima is even less relevant to the discussion.

olaf 15y ago

First, the Fukushima case is not yet closed. Tepco told us today (faz.net), that the three damaged reactors are stiil out of control, at least until end of this year. We will see, what will happen. Second: don't you ignore the risk of how many people _could_ die, in the case of a big disaster? That would have global conequences for quite some days (ironic). Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal), the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power.

Typhon 15y ago
>« Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal » Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "normal conditions", people die due to coal, whereas it is not the case with nuclear plant. The reason is that all a nuclear plant releases in the air is water. > « the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power. » You must take into account the odds of a probable disaster, such as an earthquake in Japan, but not the consequences of any disaster. It's just unreasonable to assume an improbable disaster will happen. You end up renouncing any technology by thinking that way. Obviously, Nuclear power plant must be built with security as the main concern. Obviously, a nuclear reactor can be very dangerous. But refusing to use nuclear plants, which are much more efficient than classic ones and a good long-term investment, is idiotic. We're far more likely to die in a car accident than because of radio-activity, or any other disaster that's on television. Yet, noone is suggesting that a country should be "car free". Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.
- moe 15y ago
  Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants. I'd wager the change of mind will happen rather quickly after the first terrorist crashes a plane into an US nuclear facility.
  - vukk 15y ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY
    - moe 15y ago
      Impressive video. However, I wonder if that test would look as good with a real passenger jet. According to wikipedia the empty weight of a Phantom F4 is 30,328 lb. The empty weight of a Boeing 737 is up to 80,000 lb (almost 3x as much). The empty weight of an A380 is 610,000 lb (20 times as much).