4 ms·

Clarify the problem that Fukushima faced with regards to nuclear waste. Because as far as I know, the main issue was that the backup generators running the cool

Clarify the problem that Fukushima faced with regards to nuclear waste. Because as far as I know, the main issue was that the backup generators running the cooling pumps for some of the cores were inundated as a result of the tsunami that the outdated facility was not designed to handle.. it had nothing to do with waste storage.

turbinerneiter 5y ago
The waste was stored in the reactor room and greatly complicated cleanup as far as I know.
- roenxi 5y ago
  I don't follow, Fukushima was commissioned in 1971. Are you suggesting they were keeping 50 years worth of waste in the reactor room? That seems a bit extreme even for me.
  - turbinerneiter 5y ago
    Not 50 years worth, but some. I remember it being criticised as bad practice, but also common. But this is from memory, you'll have to look it up if we want to dig deeper.
nuerow 5y ago
> Clarify the problem that Fukushima faced with regards to nuclear waste. I don't feel it's honest to try to discuss the pros and cons of a technology by cherry picking the cons that we can strawman out of the equation while purposely ignoring real-world examples of major cons. If anyone wants to argue in favour of nuclear power them they need to face the questions presented by Chernobyl, Fukushima, and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...
- bondarchuk 5y ago
  This whole thread is clearly and explicitly about nuclear waste. If you want to discuss some other aspect of nuclear power you're welcome to do so, but please don't accuse people of being dishonest just because they are sticking to the subject of conversation.
- jstummbillig 5y ago
  > I don't feel it's honest to try to discuss the pros and cons of a technology by cherry picking the cons that we can strawman out of the equation while purposely ignoring real-world examples of major cons Breaking down a problem and looking at its parts is in fact the only way to get any sort of honest and meaningful exchange about an even semi complicated problem going. The topic was nuclear waste, specifically, and it's complicated and contested enough. Nobody argued that it's the only problem with nuclear. Adding confusion to the topic in support of some agenda is simply bad form.

turbinerneiter 5y ago

The waste was stored in the reactor room and greatly complicated cleanup as far as I know.

roenxi 5y ago
I don't follow, Fukushima was commissioned in 1971. Are you suggesting they were keeping 50 years worth of waste in the reactor room? That seems a bit extreme even for me.
- turbinerneiter 5y ago
  Not 50 years worth, but some. I remember it being criticised as bad practice, but also common. But this is from memory, you'll have to look it up if we want to dig deeper.

nuerow 5y ago

> Clarify the problem that Fukushima faced with regards to nuclear waste. I don't feel it's honest to try to discuss the pros and cons of a technology by cherry picking the cons that we can strawman out of the equation while purposely ignoring real-world examples of major cons. If anyone wants to argue in favour of nuclear power them they need to face the questions presented by Chernobyl, Fukushima, and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...

bondarchuk 5y ago
This whole thread is clearly and explicitly about nuclear waste. If you want to discuss some other aspect of nuclear power you're welcome to do so, but please don't accuse people of being dishonest just because they are sticking to the subject of conversation.
jstummbillig 5y ago
> I don't feel it's honest to try to discuss the pros and cons of a technology by cherry picking the cons that we can strawman out of the equation while purposely ignoring real-world examples of major cons Breaking down a problem and looking at its parts is in fact the only way to get any sort of honest and meaningful exchange about an even semi complicated problem going. The topic was nuclear waste, specifically, and it's complicated and contested enough. Nobody argued that it's the only problem with nuclear. Adding confusion to the topic in support of some agenda is simply bad form.