4 ms·
Very important point. Calling new designs safer is buying into the narrative that older designs are unsafe, which is simply untrue. It's like saying new t-shir
by mkoubaa 4y ago
Very important point. Calling new designs safer is buying into the narrative that older designs are unsafe, which is simply untrue.
It's like saying new t-shirts are more wearable.
- hairytrog 4y agoIT kind of is true. Sure the death count directly attributable to nuclear reactors is low. But Fukushima caused the entire countries fleet to shut down - to the present day. Safety isn't about lives lost or health, it's about financial repurcussions of the accidents - both directly at the site (take a look at Fukushima today) and the effects on the wider industry, shutting down all the surrounding power plants, and forcing Japan to import fossils to compensate.
- Manuel_D 4y ago> But Fukushima caused the entire countries fleet to shut down - to the present day No, overreaction to Fukushima caused the shutdowns.
- thrown_22 4y agoPoliticians caused that, not a power plant. >We need to do something, this is something, egro we must do it. You can't fix stupid.
- ksidudwbw 4y agoFukushima was designed in the 60s. Had they updated the design to next gen the accident wouldnt have happened
- teamonkey 4y agoBut they didn’t. Because it cost money. Because the cost of building a new reactor was so large that they decided to take risks and run the old one past it’s lifetime. Fast forward to today, where governments are now facing pressure to extend the life of old existing nuclear plants past their shutdown date to reduce dependence on gas.
- pydry 4y agoAnd in the 60s the nuclear industry was just as confident of its own safety as it is today. The only measure of nuclear safety I trust is the liability cap. Currently in America it stands at 0.04% ($300 million) the cost of 1 Fukushima ($800 billion).
- samatman 4y agoI've said before, and it bears repeating, that Fukushima was the worst environmental disaster in living memory. Because journalists and activists spun it into a near-total shutdown of new nuclear production, and for no other reason.
- Manuel_D 4y ago> that Fukushima was the worst environmental disaster in living memory. By what metric? The exclusion zone has been completely lifted. The amount of radiation released into the ocean is negligible.
- ajhurliman 4y agoRead the second sentence.
- beej71 4y agoMaybe we should steer clear of power sources that can cause the worst environmental disaster in living memory, regardless of the mechanism. If new reactors like this one can avoid such outcomes where the old ones cannot, it's a decided improvement.
- chatterhead 4y agoTying your shoes is simple. I'd still market the auto-laces from Back to the Future as "simpler".
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y agoIt’s like the polyseyster revolution on fabrics, or as the researcher describes it “a new silicon chip”, for nuclear reactors. The bar of safety (or comfort) changes with the times. Modern designs are intended to be “intrinsically” or “inherently” safe, unlike older designs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherent_safety https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherent_safety
- Manuel_D 4y agoI don't think it's wrong to call them safer. The point is that the older designs were more than safe enough to keep risks considerably lower than hydroelectricity and fossil fuels.