7 ms·

I wonder if the safety concerns of nuclear power are understated. Whenever nuclear power safety is brought up, Chernobyl and 3 mile island are hand-waved away

I wonder if the safety concerns of nuclear power are understated. Whenever nuclear power safety is brought up, Chernobyl and 3 mile island are hand-waved away because we know what caused them and won't do them again. But there is always another stupid way to manage nuclear power. For example, not providing sufficient protection from Tsunamis in a country prone to them. Included in safety should be the economic cost of having a city ruined and its inhabitants displaced - that loss of wealth means increased stress and less money to spend on healthy habits. (But conversely, the benefit of lower power costs should be recorded on the credit side of the ledger.) It's probably all moot, since Thorium reactors appear to be fundamentally safe.

tpmx 6y ago
The Fukushima exclusion zone has a 30 km radius, where half of the circle is land area. The Fukushima reactor meltdowns happened because active cooling failed, after both electric power and emergency generators failed becaused of the flooding from the tsunami. These reactors were of a very old 1960s design that depended on active cooling to avoid melting down. This is not the case with newer reactors utilizing passive safety features, based on things such as gravity (to pull the fuel rods out in case of power failure). Still: There were zero deaths caused by radiation during this incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
- WanderPanda 6y ago
  I wouldn‘t be surprised if certain states would even face a gravity outage at some point
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tpmx 6y ago
    That does seem to be the unscientific position of your country, unfortunately. Please stop burning coal.
- ErikVandeWater 6y ago
  > emergency generators failed becaused of the flooding from the tsunami. Exactly. Putting emergency generators below ground when the Tsunami levees were already insufficient was a boneheaded error that could have been fixed any year between the end of construction and 2011. That's 40 years of ignoring a problem a 10 year old would point out.
  - tpmx 6y ago
    They believed the wall was sufficient for possible tsunamis. It wasn't. Having a reactor design with a passive safety feature involving the fuel rods would have avoided this meltdown, and many other extreme cases that could possibly occur in the future.
    - ErikVandeWater 6y ago
      Sure, but I'm also confident this level of incompetence (not exclusive to Japan) can find ways to defeat new designs (for example, improper installation of the design).
      - tpmx 6y ago
        I think increased productization/de-fragmentation of the nuclear plant industry will make things so much safer. Instead of building 2-5 of each reactor design, build thousands. Sort of like with passenger aircraft. Makes things cheaper and so much more idiot-proof.
  - neuronic 6y ago
    This is also business as usual which is why we need to end nuclear as soon as possible. It's not like Fukushima was the only reactor with a large incident either.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    It likely have been politically difficult to admit that a crucial safety feature won’t work/couldn’t have worked in the form it is/was built
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > Still: There were zero deaths caused by radiation during this incident That's an official attribution. The amount of radiation sent into the ocean was measurable worldwide. This number is decidedly not 0, in a realistic sense. I don't see the rationale behind pretending this isn't as bad as it is in any community. https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiation-from-fukushima-disaster-still-affects-32-million-japanese https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiation-from-fukushima-disaste... https://world.wng.org/2014/09/locals_suffer_long_term_effects_of_fukushima_meltdown https://world.wng.org/2014/09/locals_suffer_long_term_effect...
  - tpmx 6y ago
    I guess you knew what was coming but still: The realistic alternative (coal power) is way worse. So many more deaths. Just with ongoing operations, no accidents.
    - hilbertseries 6y ago
      The alternative is natural gas these days.
      - tpmx 6y ago
        Please tell that to Japan (Coal: 33% of electricity) and Germany (Coal: 29% of electricity). Numbers from 2019.
    - Supermancho 6y ago
      > I guess you knew what was coming but still I'm not sure what this is a reference to. I was pointing out a discrepancy about the accuracy of the article, not the relative safety of power generation methods.
tjoff 6y ago
The Fukushima incident is still dwarfed by the tsunami itself.
StavrosK 6y ago
I downvoted you, but I did it less because of what you said and more because of the broader context. You said: > I wonder if the safety concerns of nuclear power are understated. Possibly, but this implies (or will be understood as) doubt as to how safe nuclear power is. The counterpoint is that it doesn't matter how safe it is, but how much safer (or less safe) it is than other methods of power generation. Opponents usually say "nuclear power is dangerous, look at Chernobyl!" while conveniently ignoring the thousands of people with cancer and respiratory problems prevalent around (and caused by) coal factories.
- ErikVandeWater 6y ago
  You doubted me for wondering? Ok.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    My comment was rather extensive and I feel it explained my point rather well. Nowhere did it say that I doubted you, so I'm going to be charitable and guess that you just didn't really read it.
    - ErikVandeWater 6y ago
      I'll be charitable and assume you're having a bad day. Both in terms of not understanding what you wrote and feeling the need to be rude about something so insignificant.
karaterobot 6y ago
> I wonder if the safety concerns of nuclear power are understated. It depends on who you're talking to. People who are against nuclear power tend to wildly overstate the risk, and people who are strongly in support of nuclear power (like myself) likely understate the risks, which are obviously non-zero, even if they're lower than the alternatives. That's a sign that an unproductive discussion is going on, but it's very very common.
- tpmx 6y ago
  Speak for yourself. Many others have done the maths decades ago and realized that nuclear is the least bad option. In my case: 1992.
et2o 6y ago
The biggest issue with nuclear power isn’t the acute risks of radiation from meltdown, in my opinion, but more the management of the waste which will remain radioactive and highly dangerous for millennia.

tpmx 6y ago

The Fukushima exclusion zone has a 30 km radius, where half of the circle is land area. The Fukushima reactor meltdowns happened because active cooling failed, after both electric power and emergency generators failed becaused of the flooding from the tsunami. These reactors were of a very old 1960s design that depended on active cooling to avoid melting down. This is not the case with newer reactors utilizing passive safety features, based on things such as gravity (to pull the fuel rods out in case of power failure). Still: There were zero deaths caused by radiation during this incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

WanderPanda 6y ago
I wouldn‘t be surprised if certain states would even face a gravity outage at some point
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tpmx 6y ago
  That does seem to be the unscientific position of your country, unfortunately. Please stop burning coal.
ErikVandeWater 6y ago
> emergency generators failed becaused of the flooding from the tsunami. Exactly. Putting emergency generators below ground when the Tsunami levees were already insufficient was a boneheaded error that could have been fixed any year between the end of construction and 2011. That's 40 years of ignoring a problem a 10 year old would point out.
- tpmx 6y ago
  They believed the wall was sufficient for possible tsunamis. It wasn't. Having a reactor design with a passive safety feature involving the fuel rods would have avoided this meltdown, and many other extreme cases that could possibly occur in the future.
  - ErikVandeWater 6y ago
    Sure, but I'm also confident this level of incompetence (not exclusive to Japan) can find ways to defeat new designs (for example, improper installation of the design).
    - tpmx 6y ago
      I think increased productization/de-fragmentation of the nuclear plant industry will make things so much safer. Instead of building 2-5 of each reactor design, build thousands. Sort of like with passenger aircraft. Makes things cheaper and so much more idiot-proof.
- neuronic 6y ago
  This is also business as usual which is why we need to end nuclear as soon as possible. It's not like Fukushima was the only reactor with a large incident either.
- numpad0 6y ago
  It likely have been politically difficult to admit that a crucial safety feature won’t work/couldn’t have worked in the form it is/was built
Supermancho 6y ago
> Still: There were zero deaths caused by radiation during this incident That's an official attribution. The amount of radiation sent into the ocean was measurable worldwide. This number is decidedly not 0, in a realistic sense. I don't see the rationale behind pretending this isn't as bad as it is in any community. https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiation-from-fukushima-disaster-still-affects-32-million-japanese https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiation-from-fukushima-disaste... https://world.wng.org/2014/09/locals_suffer_long_term_effects_of_fukushima_meltdown https://world.wng.org/2014/09/locals_suffer_long_term_effect...
- tpmx 6y ago
  I guess you knew what was coming but still: The realistic alternative (coal power) is way worse. So many more deaths. Just with ongoing operations, no accidents.
  - hilbertseries 6y ago
    The alternative is natural gas these days.
    - tpmx 6y ago
      Please tell that to Japan (Coal: 33% of electricity) and Germany (Coal: 29% of electricity). Numbers from 2019.
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    > I guess you knew what was coming but still I'm not sure what this is a reference to. I was pointing out a discrepancy about the accuracy of the article, not the relative safety of power generation methods.

tjoff 6y ago

The Fukushima incident is still dwarfed by the tsunami itself.

StavrosK 6y ago

I downvoted you, but I did it less because of what you said and more because of the broader context. You said: > I wonder if the safety concerns of nuclear power are understated. Possibly, but this implies (or will be understood as) doubt as to how safe nuclear power is. The counterpoint is that it doesn't matter how safe it is, but how much safer (or less safe) it is than other methods of power generation. Opponents usually say "nuclear power is dangerous, look at Chernobyl!" while conveniently ignoring the thousands of people with cancer and respiratory problems prevalent around (and caused by) coal factories.

ErikVandeWater 6y ago
You doubted me for wondering? Ok.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  My comment was rather extensive and I feel it explained my point rather well. Nowhere did it say that I doubted you, so I'm going to be charitable and guess that you just didn't really read it.
  - ErikVandeWater 6y ago
    I'll be charitable and assume you're having a bad day. Both in terms of not understanding what you wrote and feeling the need to be rude about something so insignificant.

karaterobot 6y ago

> I wonder if the safety concerns of nuclear power are understated. It depends on who you're talking to. People who are against nuclear power tend to wildly overstate the risk, and people who are strongly in support of nuclear power (like myself) likely understate the risks, which are obviously non-zero, even if they're lower than the alternatives. That's a sign that an unproductive discussion is going on, but it's very very common.

tpmx 6y ago
Speak for yourself. Many others have done the maths decades ago and realized that nuclear is the least bad option. In my case: 1992.

et2o 6y ago

The biggest issue with nuclear power isn’t the acute risks of radiation from meltdown, in my opinion, but more the management of the waste which will remain radioactive and highly dangerous for millennia.