5 ms·

Good. A decade of listening to hippies say the most insane things about radiation from Fukushima, driven by cynical and breathless media mendacity, was a real

Good. A decade of listening to hippies say the most insane things about radiation from Fukushima, driven by cynical and breathless media mendacity, was a real black pill. I've said this before: Fukushima was the worst environmental disaster in human history, because our media landscape amplified it into something which effectively cut off nuclearization of baseline power as something which Western nations which aren't France could do. I don't know precisely how many gigatonnes of carbon we're talking about but it is, without exaggeration, a double-digit percentage of the total. It could be gone and it isn't, and it's because of Fukushima. The amount of radiation in that water is utterly dwarfed by natural potassium. You can use your search engine of choice to find the graphic, you will laugh. Negligible. What isn't negligible is the terror which benefitted only a few people in journalism who sold some ads with it. The human cost is immeasurable. Such a shame.

neolog 6y ago
> benefitted only a few people in journalism Some competitor industries too.
merb 6y ago
> The amount of radiation in that water is utterly dwarfed by natural potassium. You can use your search engine of choice to find the graphic, you will laugh. Negligible. well there is a lot of sealine, which would disagree if they could. (they can't of course) it will have tons of impact on the sealife where the water will be released. it might be even going ways where we do not know. it's basically a tradeoff. release it in the sea and pollute that or worse it could in some way contain freshwater. it's not a black pill and such measures should probably taken with care. > What isn't negligible is the terror which benefitted only a few people in journalism who sold some ads with it. The human cost is immeasurable. if only human cost is bad, than I guarantee you that in 10-20 years you do not want to live on this planet. we should never treat such a thing lightly no matter if it will only pollute 0.00001% of the plants inside the ocean.
0xTJ 6y ago
I really find it gross the extent to which fear mongering over nuclear happens. Countries decommissioning nuclear plants to switch to coal, which kill far more people, even scaling by use. Instead of using a source of power that's overall incredibly safe, and which produces relatively small amounts of highly manageable waste, people have pushed to switch to these incredibly environmentally harmful power sources. This is especially surprising from countries like Germany that, as someone who doesn't live anywhere near them, see them as technically adept. My province in Canada got 60% of our power in 2018 from nuclear (plus 1/4 from hydro), and a different province got 95% of theirs from hydro, but then that's offset by other provinces that get 90% of theirs from natural gas and coal. Sure not every place is ideally suited for a lot of nuclear (though hopefully SMRs will help), but 90% is too high. We need less fossil fuels and more nuclear to bridge the gap to more renewables. For an interesting comparison of the deaths from nuclear energy, compared to other sources, I highly recommend "How Many People Did Nuclear Energy Kill? Nuclear Death Toll" [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM
- zabzonk 6y ago
  > Countries decommissioning nuclear plants to switch to coal, That won't happen in the UK for political reasons - the miner's strike and Thatcherism (and vast amounts of suffering) would be seen to be for nothing. The UK has put a lot of effort into renewables, and is currently building a new nuclear station.
dathinab 6y ago
> The amount of radiation in that water is utterly dwarfed by natural potassium. You can use your search engine of choice to find the graphic, you will laugh. Negligible. Only if you instantly perfectly mix all radioactive material with all the water in the ocean, which won't happen. Dumping (liquid) radioactive wast into the sea is common practice and often allowed due to dilution, but there are very strong indices that people living close to the dump site (and potentially not that close) will have noticeable increased health risk. Because clearly (common sense) it takes time for a liquid to be diluted and until then it is in a unhealthy concentration. Anyway this is a one-time dump so it's a bit different from continuously dumping smaller amounts over decades. (Which now that I think about it Fukushima might be doing since it's creation anyway...).
- ddingus 6y ago
  Yeah, the core itself is likely to become part of the water cycle. What is the half life? Someone said it was half as radioactive after a decade. Maybe it can really be a one time dump.
  - shoto_io 6y ago
    Second answer includes: > If I’m completely honest, I’d be perfectly willing to drink a glass of the water they’re planning to dump. I’m not heading all the way to Japan for it, and I doubt they’d let me do it anyway, but I’d drink it. Make of that what you will.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      Conventiently, he wont. Those living nearby will, however.
      - shoto_io 6y ago
        These answers sound almost like they're fabricated...
        6y ago
smarx007 6y ago
Notably, the article submitted to HN did not have a single number inside (well, it did, but "2011" is a year and not relevant here). Thanks for the pointer, found the infographic here: https://www.quora.com/Japanese-Prime-Minister-Yoshihide-Suga-plans-to-accelerate-dumping-millions-of-gallons-of-radioactive-water-directly-into-the-WORLDS-OCEANS-Is-this-how-to-dispose-of-radioactive-material-if-at-all https://www.quora.com/Japanese-Prime-Minister-Yoshihide-Suga...
zabzonk 6y ago
> which effectively cut off nuclearization of baseline power as something which Western nations which aren't France could do The UK is currently building a new reactor and considering building four others.
beders 6y ago
Minimizing the impact and long term effects of this is despicable. How dare you spit on the grave of the 1368 people that died as a direct and indirect consequence? Nuclear power is expensive, unreliable and the sooner we get rid of it, the better. Note: that doesn't mean to bring more fossil fuel power plants online. And this baseline myth needs to die.
- elzbardico 6y ago
  Reality disagrees. By any objective measure, MW per MW I challenge you to find an energy source able to supply baseline (not a myth too) with a better safety profile then nuclear fission.
- 0xTJ 6y ago
  For your benefit, and the benefit of those around you, please watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM.
colordrops 6y ago
Yes, hippies, the perennial scapegoats for all our problems. It's unfortunate how they run energy commissions, governments, and military organizations around the world, preventing any progress.
- coldtea 6y ago
  And of course it was hippies who designed this reactor... And it was hippies that enabled and encouraged burning coal and petrol without a care in the world for centuries before we got nuclear (and after), not engineers...
- samatman 6y ago
  It would be foolish, of course, to blame hippies either for producing the misinformation, and, to a lesser degree, to pin the subsequent bad policy choices directly on them. They play a role in the latter, they do vote sometimes; a prominent role even, but not of course exclusive. If you had been careful in your reading, you would have seen me do neither. What I said was I had to listen to them talk about it for a decade. Which, if you keep thinking for a second: why is this guy around so many hippies? Anyway, namaste bro. I'm a white guy who was raised as a vegetarian Hindu, I get to say that.
Black101 6y ago
The BP oil spill[1] in the gulf of Mexico was incredibly bad too... specially knowing that they let it leak for months... And then they used toxic chemicals[2] that were more toxic then the oil itself to sink the oil to the bottom of the ocean to hide it all. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill 2. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/dispersants.html https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/en... I still avoid BP gas stations whenever I can even if it probably doesn't help. They bought most gas stations in the small town I was in at the time, next to the spill. Can't wait for nuclear & solar power to take over ;)
jay_kyburz 6y ago
You have too much faith in humanity. The tech might be safe. the radiation might be no big deal. But people are dangerous, and governments a lot less that perfect. Many of us who oppose Nuclear are not against the tech itself, but fear the people that will run it.
- indymike 6y ago
  >Many of us who oppose Nuclear are not against the tech itself, but fear the people that will run it. I'm more in fear of the people who will run the world if we continue to make the world more polluted, and energy more and more expensive and scarce.
pvaldes 6y ago
> A decade of listening to hippies... blah blah blah And I stop reading at that point. All that stupid 1970's rethoric will not work in 2021.
cassepipe 6y ago
I am not myself against nuclear power as a technology but maybe just maybe it was a bad idea to build a nuclear plant in a place subject to earthquakes and tsunamis. Can't blame the hippies for that one. So instead of blaming people for being afraid by something as terrifying as radiation, maybe let's work on making this really safe this time, even safe from man made mistakes or say, environmental hazards. If you told me that aeronautics is the safest well understood technology but each time a plane crash we would have to evacuate the whole area of a plane crash for at least fifty years, I'd be worried about planes.
deeviant 6y ago
Nuclear power is uneconomical, dangerous and unneeded. It is not the answer to the climate crisis, a solution that must work not just for rich countries with stable governments, but poor ones with unstable governments as well. The solution actually must work particularly well for poor developing countries as they are the biggest source of green house gas emission growth. Maybe it's just me, but the first thing I think of when I ask myself what a poor developing country with a potential unstable government needs is not Nuclear Power Plants. If you can not see the price trajectory of solar, wind and grid-scale storage, then you need (better?) glasses, the price drops are Putting Moore's law to shame. The cost of nuclear has only gone up.

neolog 6y ago

> benefitted only a few people in journalism Some competitor industries too.

merb 6y ago

> The amount of radiation in that water is utterly dwarfed by natural potassium. You can use your search engine of choice to find the graphic, you will laugh. Negligible. well there is a lot of sealine, which would disagree if they could. (they can't of course) it will have tons of impact on the sealife where the water will be released. it might be even going ways where we do not know. it's basically a tradeoff. release it in the sea and pollute that or worse it could in some way contain freshwater. it's not a black pill and such measures should probably taken with care. > What isn't negligible is the terror which benefitted only a few people in journalism who sold some ads with it. The human cost is immeasurable. if only human cost is bad, than I guarantee you that in 10-20 years you do not want to live on this planet. we should never treat such a thing lightly no matter if it will only pollute 0.00001% of the plants inside the ocean.

0xTJ 6y ago

I really find it gross the extent to which fear mongering over nuclear happens. Countries decommissioning nuclear plants to switch to coal, which kill far more people, even scaling by use. Instead of using a source of power that's overall incredibly safe, and which produces relatively small amounts of highly manageable waste, people have pushed to switch to these incredibly environmentally harmful power sources. This is especially surprising from countries like Germany that, as someone who doesn't live anywhere near them, see them as technically adept. My province in Canada got 60% of our power in 2018 from nuclear (plus 1/4 from hydro), and a different province got 95% of theirs from hydro, but then that's offset by other provinces that get 90% of theirs from natural gas and coal. Sure not every place is ideally suited for a lot of nuclear (though hopefully SMRs will help), but 90% is too high. We need less fossil fuels and more nuclear to bridge the gap to more renewables. For an interesting comparison of the deaths from nuclear energy, compared to other sources, I highly recommend "How Many People Did Nuclear Energy Kill? Nuclear Death Toll" [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM

zabzonk 6y ago
> Countries decommissioning nuclear plants to switch to coal, That won't happen in the UK for political reasons - the miner's strike and Thatcherism (and vast amounts of suffering) would be seen to be for nothing. The UK has put a lot of effort into renewables, and is currently building a new nuclear station.

dathinab 6y ago

> The amount of radiation in that water is utterly dwarfed by natural potassium. You can use your search engine of choice to find the graphic, you will laugh. Negligible. Only if you instantly perfectly mix all radioactive material with all the water in the ocean, which won't happen. Dumping (liquid) radioactive wast into the sea is common practice and often allowed due to dilution, but there are very strong indices that people living close to the dump site (and potentially not that close) will have noticeable increased health risk. Because clearly (common sense) it takes time for a liquid to be diluted and until then it is in a unhealthy concentration. Anyway this is a one-time dump so it's a bit different from continuously dumping smaller amounts over decades. (Which now that I think about it Fukushima might be doing since it's creation anyway...).

ddingus 6y ago
Yeah, the core itself is likely to become part of the water cycle. What is the half life? Someone said it was half as radioactive after a decade. Maybe it can really be a one time dump.
- shoto_io 6y ago
  Second answer includes: > If I’m completely honest, I’d be perfectly willing to drink a glass of the water they’re planning to dump. I’m not heading all the way to Japan for it, and I doubt they’d let me do it anyway, but I’d drink it. Make of that what you will.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Conventiently, he wont. Those living nearby will, however.
    - shoto_io 6y ago
      These answers sound almost like they're fabricated...
      - 6y ago

smarx007 6y ago

Notably, the article submitted to HN did not have a single number inside (well, it did, but "2011" is a year and not relevant here). Thanks for the pointer, found the infographic here: https://www.quora.com/Japanese-Prime-Minister-Yoshihide-Suga-plans-to-accelerate-dumping-millions-of-gallons-of-radioactive-water-directly-into-the-WORLDS-OCEANS-Is-this-how-to-dispose-of-radioactive-material-if-at-all https://www.quora.com/Japanese-Prime-Minister-Yoshihide-Suga...

zabzonk 6y ago

> which effectively cut off nuclearization of baseline power as something which Western nations which aren't France could do The UK is currently building a new reactor and considering building four others.

beders 6y ago

Minimizing the impact and long term effects of this is despicable. How dare you spit on the grave of the 1368 people that died as a direct and indirect consequence? Nuclear power is expensive, unreliable and the sooner we get rid of it, the better. Note: that doesn't mean to bring more fossil fuel power plants online. And this baseline myth needs to die.

elzbardico 6y ago
Reality disagrees. By any objective measure, MW per MW I challenge you to find an energy source able to supply baseline (not a myth too) with a better safety profile then nuclear fission.
0xTJ 6y ago
For your benefit, and the benefit of those around you, please watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM.

colordrops 6y ago

Yes, hippies, the perennial scapegoats for all our problems. It's unfortunate how they run energy commissions, governments, and military organizations around the world, preventing any progress.

coldtea 6y ago
And of course it was hippies who designed this reactor... And it was hippies that enabled and encouraged burning coal and petrol without a care in the world for centuries before we got nuclear (and after), not engineers...
samatman 6y ago
It would be foolish, of course, to blame hippies either for producing the misinformation, and, to a lesser degree, to pin the subsequent bad policy choices directly on them. They play a role in the latter, they do vote sometimes; a prominent role even, but not of course exclusive. If you had been careful in your reading, you would have seen me do neither. What I said was I had to listen to them talk about it for a decade. Which, if you keep thinking for a second: why is this guy around so many hippies? Anyway, namaste bro. I'm a white guy who was raised as a vegetarian Hindu, I get to say that.

Black101 6y ago

The BP oil spill[1] in the gulf of Mexico was incredibly bad too... specially knowing that they let it leak for months... And then they used toxic chemicals[2] that were more toxic then the oil itself to sink the oil to the bottom of the ocean to hide it all. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill 2. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/dispersants.html https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/en... I still avoid BP gas stations whenever I can even if it probably doesn't help. They bought most gas stations in the small town I was in at the time, next to the spill. Can't wait for nuclear & solar power to take over ;)

jay_kyburz 6y ago

You have too much faith in humanity. The tech might be safe. the radiation might be no big deal. But people are dangerous, and governments a lot less that perfect. Many of us who oppose Nuclear are not against the tech itself, but fear the people that will run it.

indymike 6y ago
>Many of us who oppose Nuclear are not against the tech itself, but fear the people that will run it. I'm more in fear of the people who will run the world if we continue to make the world more polluted, and energy more and more expensive and scarce.

pvaldes 6y ago

> A decade of listening to hippies... blah blah blah And I stop reading at that point. All that stupid 1970's rethoric will not work in 2021.

cassepipe 6y ago

I am not myself against nuclear power as a technology but maybe just maybe it was a bad idea to build a nuclear plant in a place subject to earthquakes and tsunamis. Can't blame the hippies for that one. So instead of blaming people for being afraid by something as terrifying as radiation, maybe let's work on making this really safe this time, even safe from man made mistakes or say, environmental hazards. If you told me that aeronautics is the safest well understood technology but each time a plane crash we would have to evacuate the whole area of a plane crash for at least fifty years, I'd be worried about planes.

deeviant 6y ago

Nuclear power is uneconomical, dangerous and unneeded. It is not the answer to the climate crisis, a solution that must work not just for rich countries with stable governments, but poor ones with unstable governments as well. The solution actually must work particularly well for poor developing countries as they are the biggest source of green house gas emission growth. Maybe it's just me, but the first thing I think of when I ask myself what a poor developing country with a potential unstable government needs is not Nuclear Power Plants. If you can not see the price trajectory of solar, wind and grid-scale storage, then you need (better?) glasses, the price drops are Putting Moore's law to shame. The cost of nuclear has only gone up.