5 ms·

The fact that you can name all the major incidents is a testament of the safety of the technology (it really is — see deaths per TWh of various technologies).

by pornel 5y ago

The fact that you can name all the major incidents is a testament of the safety of the technology (it really is — see deaths per TWh of various technologies). Fukushima was hit by an earthquake and tsunami. Most deaths attributed to the Fukushima disaster were people who froze to death because they couldn't afford heating after electricity price hike caused by Fukushima's shutdown. Keep in mind that nuclear plants have been operating since these incidents all over the world, without further problems. There are over 440 reactors are running right now. Even the Chernobyl power plant kept operating the remaining three reactors until the year 2000.

arcticbull 5y ago
And even they they only, to my knowledge, shut down the remaining three reactors in exchange for funding from the international community for the New Safe Containment sarcophagus. Nine other similar RBMK reactors have continued to operate (albeit with some safety retrofits) since then without incident.
lovemenot 5y ago
>> Most deaths attributed to the Fukushima disaster were people who froze to death because they couldn't afford heating after electricity price hike caused by Fukushima's shutdown. Do you have a source for this? How many froze, and of those which were for economic reasons? I was in Japan at the time, and the assertion doesn't look right, unless it's comparing tiny numbers: e.g. zero nuclear deaths and two frozen through economics, technically means "most deaths" were from freezing.
- pornel 5y ago
  http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf Yes, both are small numbers of people. I think it's a very illustrative effect — how few people were directly affected by the disaster, and how second-order effects affecting whole populations are magnified. Similarly how fear of flying after 9/11 caused people to take less-safe-per-mile car instead.
  - lovemenot 5y ago
    Their models predict excess deaths from economically driven cold which compare marginally unfavourably with deaths from nuclear related dislocation. Even if the model holds correct, the government's policy to shutdown reactors immediately was likely the right choice. Just in terms of number of expected deaths. Two factors lead me to think so: aftershock risk and the possibility of systemic failure in the nuclear industry.

by pornel 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

And even they they only, to my knowledge, shut down the remaining three reactors in exchange for funding from the international community for the New Safe Containment sarcophagus. Nine other similar RBMK reactors have continued to operate (albeit with some safety retrofits) since then without incident.

lovemenot 5y ago

>> Most deaths attributed to the Fukushima disaster were people who froze to death because they couldn't afford heating after electricity price hike caused by Fukushima's shutdown. Do you have a source for this? How many froze, and of those which were for economic reasons? I was in Japan at the time, and the assertion doesn't look right, unless it's comparing tiny numbers: e.g. zero nuclear deaths and two frozen through economics, technically means "most deaths" were from freezing.

pornel 5y ago
http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf Yes, both are small numbers of people. I think it's a very illustrative effect — how few people were directly affected by the disaster, and how second-order effects affecting whole populations are magnified. Similarly how fear of flying after 9/11 caused people to take less-safe-per-mile car instead.
- lovemenot 5y ago
  Their models predict excess deaths from economically driven cold which compare marginally unfavourably with deaths from nuclear related dislocation. Even if the model holds correct, the government's policy to shutdown reactors immediately was likely the right choice. Just in terms of number of expected deaths. Two factors lead me to think so: aftershock risk and the possibility of systemic failure in the nuclear industry.