5 ms·

Yeah, it is always some human who fails but in the case of this tech, the failure becomes a catastrophe. So we either take out the human factor or the technolo

Yeah, it is always some human who fails but in the case of this tech, the failure becomes a catastrophe. So we either take out the human factor or the technology out of the equation. Right now we can only do that with the tech.

mpweiher 6y ago
No, even with the biggest failures, nuclear is still vastly more safe than the alternatives. What is catastrophic is the news reporting, particularly in Germany. For example, Fukushima was caused by a Tsunami. Death Toll Tsunami: 15,899 Fukushima: 1 —> OMG FUKUSHIMA!!!! <— If you looked at the press coverage, you would think it was the other way around, that there was this Tsunami but it wasn't a big deal and there was the huge "catastrophe" of Fukushima. And many people do believe, fervently, that this is the case, that it was the other way around. But it wasn't. In fact, in Germany Fukushima is considered a "Super-GAU", with a GAU being the "Größter Anzunehmender Unfall", the largest potential accident. So "GAU" itself is already the superlative, but no, we have to rhetorically top the superlative, make it the superest largerest. And that's for an accident that has caused a single death (a worker recently passed and it is considered likely it was an effect, before the death toll from the accident was zero). The only thing that's a Super-GAU is the hyperbole of the hyperventilating press coverage.
- Krasnol 6y ago
  How is it that you consider only the immediate deaths from the event and neither the follow up casualties, the evacuation measures and everything else which hangs on this? Do your really think your opposite is so stupid? And yes, I did look at the press coverage a lot since I was in Tokyo at that time. But I also looked at it later on and no, I did not think it was the other way around however I'm also not that blind to ignore all the other consequences this catastrophe had for the region and the people who lived/live there.
  - mpweiher 6y ago
    Because I also only considered the immediate deaths from the Tsunami. And actually, the 1 death is a follow-up casualty, it wasn't immediate. So if we really only count immediate deaths, that number is 0. Zero. --> OMG FUKUSHIMA!!! <-- What the long-term death rate is going to be is very unclear. Now to the evacuation. "Many deaths are attributed to the evacuation and subsequent long-term displacement caused by mass evacuation that was not necessary for the most part" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... The same happens to be true for Chernobyl, where the health-effects due to the evacuation far exceed the health-effects due to radiation. Whereas for example the wildlife in both exclusion zones is doing just swimmingly. So: Fear of nuclear is killing more people than nuclear. This is generally true, because the use of nuclear energy has saved over a million people from premature death and will (or would) save millions more: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/nuclear-power-may-have-saved-1-8-million-lives-otherwise-lost-to-fossil-fuels-may-save-up-to-7-million-more/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunctio... But somewhat surprisingly, it is also true when nuclear goes wrong, when there are accidents. Check out the decennial Chernobyl reports by the WHO, they are absolutely fascinating. Spoiler alert: with each report, so every ten years, they massively reduced their estimate of how many people would die as a result, usually by an order of magnitude. Now that doesn't mean that there should not have been any evacuation, but it in both cases it was both to widespread and way too long.
    - Krasnol 6y ago
      You completely missed the message here. I wonder if it was intentional. Let me repeat it again: It's not only deaths if it comes to say what a "safe" technology is. A technology to leads to whole regions being evacuated including every economical, social and environmental fallouts resulting from that, IS NOT SAFE.
      - mpweiher 6y ago
        Hmm...you appear to have missed: "caused by mass evacuation that was not necessary for the most part" What leads to whole regions being evacuated is the exact irrational fear and panic-mongering you promulgate. Once again: irrational fear of nuclear kills way more people than nuclear.

mpweiher 6y ago

No, even with the biggest failures, nuclear is still vastly more safe than the alternatives. What is catastrophic is the news reporting, particularly in Germany. For example, Fukushima was caused by a Tsunami. Death Toll Tsunami: 15,899 Fukushima: 1 —> OMG FUKUSHIMA!!!! <— If you looked at the press coverage, you would think it was the other way around, that there was this Tsunami but it wasn't a big deal and there was the huge "catastrophe" of Fukushima. And many people do believe, fervently, that this is the case, that it was the other way around. But it wasn't. In fact, in Germany Fukushima is considered a "Super-GAU", with a GAU being the "Größter Anzunehmender Unfall", the largest potential accident. So "GAU" itself is already the superlative, but no, we have to rhetorically top the superlative, make it the superest largerest. And that's for an accident that has caused a single death (a worker recently passed and it is considered likely it was an effect, before the death toll from the accident was zero). The only thing that's a Super-GAU is the hyperbole of the hyperventilating press coverage.

Krasnol 6y ago
How is it that you consider only the immediate deaths from the event and neither the follow up casualties, the evacuation measures and everything else which hangs on this? Do your really think your opposite is so stupid? And yes, I did look at the press coverage a lot since I was in Tokyo at that time. But I also looked at it later on and no, I did not think it was the other way around however I'm also not that blind to ignore all the other consequences this catastrophe had for the region and the people who lived/live there.
- mpweiher 6y ago
  Because I also only considered the immediate deaths from the Tsunami. And actually, the 1 death is a follow-up casualty, it wasn't immediate. So if we really only count immediate deaths, that number is 0. Zero. --> OMG FUKUSHIMA!!! <-- What the long-term death rate is going to be is very unclear. Now to the evacuation. "Many deaths are attributed to the evacuation and subsequent long-term displacement caused by mass evacuation that was not necessary for the most part" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... The same happens to be true for Chernobyl, where the health-effects due to the evacuation far exceed the health-effects due to radiation. Whereas for example the wildlife in both exclusion zones is doing just swimmingly. So: Fear of nuclear is killing more people than nuclear. This is generally true, because the use of nuclear energy has saved over a million people from premature death and will (or would) save millions more: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/nuclear-power-may-have-saved-1-8-million-lives-otherwise-lost-to-fossil-fuels-may-save-up-to-7-million-more/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunctio... But somewhat surprisingly, it is also true when nuclear goes wrong, when there are accidents. Check out the decennial Chernobyl reports by the WHO, they are absolutely fascinating. Spoiler alert: with each report, so every ten years, they massively reduced their estimate of how many people would die as a result, usually by an order of magnitude. Now that doesn't mean that there should not have been any evacuation, but it in both cases it was both to widespread and way too long.
  - Krasnol 6y ago
    You completely missed the message here. I wonder if it was intentional. Let me repeat it again: It's not only deaths if it comes to say what a "safe" technology is. A technology to leads to whole regions being evacuated including every economical, social and environmental fallouts resulting from that, IS NOT SAFE.
    - mpweiher 6y ago
      Hmm...you appear to have missed: "caused by mass evacuation that was not necessary for the most part" What leads to whole regions being evacuated is the exact irrational fear and panic-mongering you promulgate. Once again: irrational fear of nuclear kills way more people than nuclear.