3 ms·

Both of those events were predominantly due to 1960s technology, namely generation II nuclear power. Generations III and IV are significantly more robust with m

by Caerus 15y ago

Both of those events were predominantly due to 1960s technology, namely generation II nuclear power. Generations III and IV are significantly more robust with many more fail safe mechanisms.

mkramlich 15y ago
I was citing facts that clearly refuted your position: > We've had clean, green, safe, carbon-neutral energy for nearly 60 years. And whether the original design used for those failed facilities was created today or 60 years ago is irrelevant if today, right now, they can cause dirty hazardous life-threatening disasters. Which again, clearly and directly disproves your claim.
- Caerus 15y ago
  The fact that old technology which should have decommissioned and replaced years ago is still in use is a public policy failure and in no way "refutes" nuclear as a safe technology.
- Turing_Machine 15y ago
  They haven't produced any "life-threatening disasters", other than Chernobyl, of course. Soviet jets went down a lot, too, but we don't judge the safety of Wester airlines using the record of Aeroflot.
  - mkramlich 15y ago
    There have been no life-threatening disasters except all the ones that have occurred. Got it. I'm moving on from this thread. I'm seeing how the logic wind blows in it. :)
Tichy 15y ago
All systems fail. Sorry, but if you are remotely interested in engineering, you should have learned that already. After every accident, they will add one more safety net and then claim that "now the reactors really are safe". They assumed Fukushima was safe before the accident, too.
- Caerus 15y ago
  Actually, no they didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Operating_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power... Yes, all systems fail. Fukushima was hit by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and a 10m tsunami, which is about the worst environment imaginable and it almost survived intact. Most newer technologies would have been unaffected, or at least shut down into a safe state. And yes, you can come up with nightmare scenarios for every technology. Fukushima experienced one in a dilapidated state and just about came through unscathed. Add in another 30 or 40 years of science and engineering and the chances of a nuclear disaster effectively become zero. Compared with the pollution and deaths associated with coal, I know which side I'd rather be on.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Showing one single plant without failures doesn't prove anything, sorry. And the comparison with coal is completely besides the point. Edit: OK, only now read the Wikipedia link. So your point is that Fukushima was not operated properly? Well that is exactly my point. Even if in theory you could design a secure system, it won't work out in reality. "The system" is not only one reactor, it is the whole system of society that operates it. Just look at the way the US handles airport security after 9/11 and after the shoe bomber and underwear bomber (naked body scanners). The same way they will handle nuclear power plant security. If there is a problem, they will fix that particular problem and totally miss the big picture. (And every country also, just mentioning the US because their airport failure is so well known these days). And another Edit: if they knew Fukushima was not safe before the accident, why did they not shut it down? Think about it, and then extrapolate to other nuclear plants. And how did they sell Fukushima to the public when it was built? I am sure they claimed it was safe at least back then.
- chc 15y ago
  Clarification: Are you actually claiming that the Fukushima reactor caused more deaths than a coal plant would have or are you just nitpicking the word "safe"?
  - 15y ago

by Caerus 15y ago

Both of those events were predominantly due to 1960s technology, namely generation II nuclear power. Generations III and IV are significantly more robust with many more fail safe mechanisms.

mkramlich 15y ago

I was citing facts that clearly refuted your position: > We've had clean, green, safe, carbon-neutral energy for nearly 60 years. And whether the original design used for those failed facilities was created today or 60 years ago is irrelevant if today, right now, they can cause dirty hazardous life-threatening disasters. Which again, clearly and directly disproves your claim.

Caerus 15y ago
The fact that old technology which should have decommissioned and replaced years ago is still in use is a public policy failure and in no way "refutes" nuclear as a safe technology.
Turing_Machine 15y ago
They haven't produced any "life-threatening disasters", other than Chernobyl, of course. Soviet jets went down a lot, too, but we don't judge the safety of Wester airlines using the record of Aeroflot.
- mkramlich 15y ago
  There have been no life-threatening disasters except all the ones that have occurred. Got it. I'm moving on from this thread. I'm seeing how the logic wind blows in it. :)

Tichy 15y ago

All systems fail. Sorry, but if you are remotely interested in engineering, you should have learned that already. After every accident, they will add one more safety net and then claim that "now the reactors really are safe". They assumed Fukushima was safe before the accident, too.

Caerus 15y ago
Actually, no they didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Operating_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power... Yes, all systems fail. Fukushima was hit by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and a 10m tsunami, which is about the worst environment imaginable and it almost survived intact. Most newer technologies would have been unaffected, or at least shut down into a safe state. And yes, you can come up with nightmare scenarios for every technology. Fukushima experienced one in a dilapidated state and just about came through unscathed. Add in another 30 or 40 years of science and engineering and the chances of a nuclear disaster effectively become zero. Compared with the pollution and deaths associated with coal, I know which side I'd rather be on.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Showing one single plant without failures doesn't prove anything, sorry. And the comparison with coal is completely besides the point. Edit: OK, only now read the Wikipedia link. So your point is that Fukushima was not operated properly? Well that is exactly my point. Even if in theory you could design a secure system, it won't work out in reality. "The system" is not only one reactor, it is the whole system of society that operates it. Just look at the way the US handles airport security after 9/11 and after the shoe bomber and underwear bomber (naked body scanners). The same way they will handle nuclear power plant security. If there is a problem, they will fix that particular problem and totally miss the big picture. (And every country also, just mentioning the US because their airport failure is so well known these days). And another Edit: if they knew Fukushima was not safe before the accident, why did they not shut it down? Think about it, and then extrapolate to other nuclear plants. And how did they sell Fukushima to the public when it was built? I am sure they claimed it was safe at least back then.
chc 15y ago
Clarification: Are you actually claiming that the Fukushima reactor caused more deaths than a coal plant would have or are you just nitpicking the word "safe"?
- 15y ago