3 ms·

Not on a comparable scale. Excuse me? As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima. And they were very worried about maintaini

• Typhon 15y ago
  As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem. See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open, but of course, if irradiated water goes right back in the ocean, there's dissemination on a bigger scale than Chernobyl. « 9/11 did happen » A huge scale terrorist attack like this is statistically less likely than an earthquake in Japan.
  • moe 15y ago
    Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem. Where are you getting that from? Afaik they flooded the buildings with seawater on purpose, as a means of cooling. They did that because it appeared to be the lesser of two evils. See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open It does seem to fly pretty well when you add fire. At least that's what the 2600 squaremile no-go zone in chernobyl would suggest. statistically less likely than an earthquake That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right? How would you rate the socio-economic impact of a single such event in contrast to, say, 9/11?
    • Typhon 15y ago
      Chernobyl had no core containment, it used graphite as a moderator, and it wasn't merely fire that disseminated radioactive material, it was a big explosion. Also, the director was incompetent. Note that the impact of Chernobyl remained rather localised. 2600 square miles may sound big, but on a European scale, it's not much, and Europe is the smallest continent. If you're telling me poor design and incompetence are bad and especially dangerous in security-sensitive contexts, I agree. So ? Flooding the reactors was indeed the lesser of two evils. « That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right? » No. It may happen.
      • moe 15y ago
        Chernobyl had no core containment Can we agree that any given reactor will likely have no core containment either, after a passenger jet crashed into it? it was a big explosion Likewise can we agree that there will be a big explosion when a plane crashes into a reactor? the director was incompetent And that is unheard of in other reactors? on a European scale, it's not much So, which of these areas would you like to evacuate permanently? http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/power-reactors-map-sm.jpg http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/power-reactors-map-sm.... No. It may happen. I wonder where you're taking your optimism from. Yes, terrorism may disappear. But it doesn't seem too likely, does it?
        • Typhon 15y ago
          Can we agree that any given reactor will likely have no core containment either, after a passenger jet crashed into it? No. A broken core containment still provides some protection. I take my optimism from the fact that I'm not too impressed by things that have little chance from happening, which prevents me from being scared of meteor rains, terrorist attacks, or whatever disaster you can think of. To put things in perspective, again : There are much less nuclear power plants than there are dangerous pesticide or fertiliser factories. It is also more likely that a pesticide or fertiliser factory will be poorly maintained. And yet, people who want to shut down nuclear plants are much more numerous and listened to than people who want to shut down chemical plants. The only reason people are afraid of nuclear power is that it is associated with those bombs so powerful nobody ever dared to use them in a war since 1945. There is no rational reason to shut down nuclear plants, and get rid of an energy source that's more efficient and cleaner than any other we know of.