5 ms·
> Most places aren't subject to magnitude 9.1 earthquakes, so no such plans are needed. I've seen this argument repeated a lot lately, and it's annoying, becau
by cesarb 4y ago
> Most places aren't subject to magnitude 9.1 earthquakes, so no such plans are needed.
I've seen this argument repeated a lot lately, and it's annoying, because it focuses entirely on the wrong thing. What went wrong with Fukushima was not the earthquake itself, but the flooding caused by it. A lot more places in the world are vulnerable to flooding than they are to earthquakes (I myself live in one of these: zero noticeable earthquakes, a lot of rain-caused flooding and landslides, and next to a nuclear power complex). And AFAIK, all or nearly all nuclear power plants in the world reviewed their backup power systems after Fukushima, to make sure their generators and power switches are not in an area of the plant which could be flooded.
- Manuel_D 4y agoTo be more specific, the tsunami caused by it. And without the massive 9.1 earthquake there would have been no tsunami. Flooding from rain or snowmelt is far more gradual.
- Gwypaas 4y agoThere has been more near misses in the nuclear industry than tsunamis. After Fukushima about all plants in the west had to install independent core cooling because the regulators realized the risk was systemic, even though the cause was special in the case of Fukushima. A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 when many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#July_2006_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J...
- Manuel_D 4y agoAnd there are plenty of real disasters that were several times deadlier than Chernobyl, yet I doubt most readers have heard of them since they don't involve the term "nuclear" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure Nuclear is one of the safest form of electricity generation, even though plants built before 1980 account for most electricity production. Safety is not an issue with nuclear, when doing a good-faith comparison with other forms of energy production and the continued damage of climate change.
- Gwypaas 4y agoStop engaging in whataboutism and answer the point instead.
- Manuel_D 4y agoI am indeed engaging with the point: Nuclear power's safety record is very good, and better than most other energy sources. Providing examples of other industrial disasters that don't have nearly the same recognition of nuclear accidents that harmed much fewer people serves to demonstrate just how strong of a double standard people apply to nuclear technology.