4 ms·
I would argue that Fukushima was a pretty good example of how safe nuclear power is. The damage was very well contained, and the evacuation measures caused more
by epgui 4y ago
I would argue that Fukushima was a pretty good example of how safe nuclear power is. The damage was very well contained, and the evacuation measures caused more harm than the primary danger.
- mlyle 4y agoI'm pretty pro-nuclear, but a couple hundred billion dollars of damages, a couple dozen direct deaths, some people getting maimed, and causing thousands of deaths by displacing a large population is a catastrophe by any stretch. Yes, fossil fuels may be worse per unit of energy generated, but they are never quite this spectacular in a single event.
- katbyte 4y agoAll avoided by not building a nuclear power plant on the coast in a subduction zone prone to intense earthquakes and massive tsunamis
- mlyle 4y agoYes, but all accidents (not just nuclear) seem to have simple, stupid, easily-avoided factors in retrospect. I know it's tempting to say "oh, if we just don't do these 4-5 dumb things-- the risk is gone". It's s small risk, but boy the end of the tail in what it costs is pretty dang high.
- orthecreedence 4y ago> but they are never quite this spectacular in a single event. Even things like oil spills? I know it's hard (or even impossible) to reduce to "overall damage" as the common unit, but I know oil spills are catastrophic.
- epgui 4y agoCatastrophic, and also much more frequent!
- jeltz 4y agoThere have been some pretty spectacular oil rig disasters with huge oil spills and >100 direct deaths. I would count those on the same scale. And those are in addition to the huge numbers of deaths every year and the contribution to global warming.
- mlyle 4y agoI wouldn't, though, because they don't have the impact on the population at large and don't cost nearly as much. Yes, maybe they impact other industries or recreation in an area for awhile.
- xupybd 4y agoYes, it's estimated Fukushima will cost a little over double you're worst oil spill. https://theconversation.com/five-years-after-fukushima-there-are-big-lessons-for-nuclear-disaster-liability-56167 https://theconversation.com/five-years-after-fukushima-there... But we happily live with oil drilling and transport. Countries like France show how safe nuclear can be.
- epgui 4y agoA fossil fuel plant operating nominally without any incidents will impact the entire population as the fossil fuels are consumed and the byproducts of their combustion emitted. The number of QALYs / DALYs / deaths lost that are directly attributable to air pollution is absolutely staggering. The magnitude of the risks we're contemplating when we're discussing nuclear are completely insignificant in relation to that.
- mlyle 4y agoYes, "Yes, fossil fuels may be worse per unit of energy generated, but they are never quite this spectacular in a single event."
- esoterae 4y agoSo far. No death tallies from the accident will be complete until the products have decayed to background levels. I think this study will take sometime to complete.
- towaway15463 4y agoIn the mean time keep enjoying yearly trips to tropical locations where you can soak up the sun and enjoy some BBQ.
- mlyle 4y agoThe death tallies are statistical noise compared to normal cancer deaths, etc, and can't be differentiated. All you can do is look at the dose and estimate the deaths. Pretty obvious the evacuation-related death toll is going to be one order of magnitude, and perhaps 2 orders of magnitude higher than Fukushima.