4 ms·

This article from 2008 did not age well. Just 3 years later, in Japan...

by BMc2020 3y ago

arcticbull 3y ago
Just 3 years later in Japan, an incident occurred where zero people died attributable to the fact the plant was nuclear. As of last year, they're back on the nuclear train. [1] [1] https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/12/22/news/japan-goes-all-nuclear https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/12/22/news/japan-goes-...
- BMc2020 3y ago
  150 square kilometers was made uninhabitable.
  - Swenrekcah 3y ago
    How many square kilometres of fertile land are we losing to fossil production and climate change effects each year? I don’t know the answer but probably more than 150 I’d wager.
    - nl 3y ago
      Yes! Replacing fossil fuel with renewables is a great solution!
    - genocidicbunny 3y ago
      I wonder how much desertification just the ongoing heatwave in Africa, Middle East and Asia is going to cause -- probably much more than 150km^2.
  - eropple 3y ago
    How many fossil fuel sites are Superfunds? How much land is going to be rendered sub-arable over the next hundred years from climate change?
  - goatlover 3y ago
    The wildlife is probably thriving in the absence of humans just like at Chernobyl.
  - waboremo 3y ago
    What's so interesting about this is that it wasn't radiation that had the biggest direct effect here (like most would assume), even the CDC and WHO recognizes this, it was the social after effects of having zero systems in place to support safe relocation. Let that sink in, after a nuclear disaster (and two MAJOR natural disasters), the most devastating impact of living in the area was having to live in underfunded temporary housing and the stigma of being viewed as "contaminated". This is something every society needs a solution for. It's not just about nuclear, natural disasters happen all the time and the best system we have in place is "leave". We can do so much better. This is another instance where improving temporary public housing isn't "just for homeless people", it's for everyone.
- throw101010 3y ago
  1 direct death from the nuclear incident, 2313 deaths due to the mental and physical stress of evacuation required partially due to the incident (there was an earthquake and tsunami ofc, but the evacuation zone was broader because of the nuclear incident), per official Japanese numbers. > The year after the 2011 disaster, the Japanese government estimated that 573 people had died indirectly as a result of the physical and mental stress of evacuation.17 Since then, more rigorous assessments of increased mortality have been done, and this figure was revised to 2,313 deaths in September 2020. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher... Don't get me wrong, I love nuclear power, but reporting numbers inaccurately/partially serves nobody. EDIT: I am not sure what justifies the 3 instant downvotes, I am literally reporting accurate numbers in the face of someone minimizing them.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Your own source says: > No one died directly from the disaster. However, 40 to 50 people were injured as a result of physical injury from the blast, or radiation burns. Since then one worker has died of lung cancer, and that is likely attributable. So zero or one death for the second worst civilian nuclear power incident in history. It's very likely that area would have had to be evacuated one way or another, no? I think it's far more fair to attribute those 2313 deaths to the tsunami and earthquake. If it was a coal plant, I don't think anyone would have been attributing 'stress deaths' to coal. Ditto any other kind of industrial or chemical plant that may or may not have been on that land. The issue seems to have been a failure to properly safely evacuate people from an industrial zone.
    - throw101010 3y ago
      Again the evacuation zone was larger due to the nature of the plant, so yes it caused more stress, to more people than a similar incident in a coal plan would have. It still is an exceptional incident and it is a ridiculously small death toll compared to the "normal" operation of coal plants yearly death toll... but it isn't a reason to minimize the numbers. As for the 1 direct death, I was referring to this part of my source: > In 2018, the Japanese government reported that one worker has since died from lung cancer as a result of radiation exposure from the event. Going by the official statement, I let them do the judging, they don't really have an interest in over-reporting as far as I know.
mwint 3y ago
… very few people were harmed in a worst-case scenario for nuclear? I don’t see your point.
- peterashford 3y ago
  That was in no way the worst case scenario
- Zigurd 3y ago
  The worst case scenario is that the Russians decide to blow up a nuclear plant in a war zone and make Europe uninhabitable.
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    A single nuclear power plant will in no way make Europe uninhabitable. Not to say that it's okay if they do, but it's not the doomsday scenario you propose.
zdragnar 3y ago
...an old, deprecated design which had been mismanaged was struck by both an earthquake and a tidal wave, and no one died from the power plant failing. Meanwhile, coal kills tens of thousands every year from pollution, windmills kill engineers and maintenance workers, and shoddy solar installs and battery banks set fire to buildings. Nuclear is far from perfect, but Fukushima is a terrible example of the dangers of nuclear power.
- nl 3y ago
  But all nuclear power plants get old - it's the only way they can make the huge up front costs work. And it seems every single technology proposed by nuclear advocates is rapidly deprecated. Notably replacement designs are almost all completely experimental.
  - eropple 3y ago
    A lot of why they're "experimental" is that large industrialized countries (especially but not exclusively the United States) decided to stop making them long enough for multiple generations of theoretical designs to pass by.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    You say this like it is a bad thing. Even this old, mismanaged plant had zero attributable deaths after what was basically the worst case scenario.
Prickle 3y ago
And it was a result of corporate cost cutting and greed. The CEOs also walked away without criminal charges. You should also look up Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant. It was closer to the epicenter than Fukushima No1, and was hit with a larger tsunami. It survived because the plant director fought management, enforced strict safety regimens and performed emergency drills every 3 months. Nuclear Power works, as evidenced by nuclear power plants and nuclear powered vessels across the planet. They are not exploding at random. The problem is exclusively human. For profit corporations cannot be trusted with nuclear power. Lowest common denominators in governments cannot be trusted with nuclear power. (Japan, a prime example. I know because I live here.) So who do we trust? A robust system of private and public organizations. Will never happen here. All the nuclear authority directors have been idiots, purchased, or claimed the position through party politics.
- cptskippy 3y ago
  > And it was a result of corporate cost cutting and greed. The CEOs also walked away without criminal charges. That is the fundamental problem with Nuclear. If not managed properly it has the potential to be very unsafe. Our world is too unstable and growing more so. I have doubts about our long term ability to safely manage reactors in a capitalist society.
- WheatMillington 3y ago
  Does corporate greed not still exist? Why shouldn't we expect another Fukushima?
  - Prickle 3y ago
    Where did I say it doesn't exist? As for the second Fukushima. Look at France. They are IMO one of the best examples of well regulated and managed nuclear power. You will find mentions of maintenance recently, but this I because COVID delayed scheduled maintenance. (No one wanted the older specialized engineers catching COVID)

This article from 2008 did not age well. Just 3 years later, in Japan...

Just 3 years later in Japan, an incident occurred where zero people died attributable to the fact the plant was nuclear. As of last year, they're back on the nuclear train. [1] [1] https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/12/22/news/japan-goes-all-nuclear https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/12/22/news/japan-goes-...

BMc2020 3y ago
150 square kilometers was made uninhabitable.
- Swenrekcah 3y ago
  How many square kilometres of fertile land are we losing to fossil production and climate change effects each year? I don’t know the answer but probably more than 150 I’d wager.
  - nl 3y ago
    Yes! Replacing fossil fuel with renewables is a great solution!
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    I wonder how much desertification just the ongoing heatwave in Africa, Middle East and Asia is going to cause -- probably much more than 150km^2.
- eropple 3y ago
  How many fossil fuel sites are Superfunds? How much land is going to be rendered sub-arable over the next hundred years from climate change?
- goatlover 3y ago
  The wildlife is probably thriving in the absence of humans just like at Chernobyl.
- waboremo 3y ago
  What's so interesting about this is that it wasn't radiation that had the biggest direct effect here (like most would assume), even the CDC and WHO recognizes this, it was the social after effects of having zero systems in place to support safe relocation. Let that sink in, after a nuclear disaster (and two MAJOR natural disasters), the most devastating impact of living in the area was having to live in underfunded temporary housing and the stigma of being viewed as "contaminated". This is something every society needs a solution for. It's not just about nuclear, natural disasters happen all the time and the best system we have in place is "leave". We can do so much better. This is another instance where improving temporary public housing isn't "just for homeless people", it's for everyone.
throw101010 3y ago
1 direct death from the nuclear incident, 2313 deaths due to the mental and physical stress of evacuation required partially due to the incident (there was an earthquake and tsunami ofc, but the evacuation zone was broader because of the nuclear incident), per official Japanese numbers. > The year after the 2011 disaster, the Japanese government estimated that 573 people had died indirectly as a result of the physical and mental stress of evacuation.17 Since then, more rigorous assessments of increased mortality have been done, and this figure was revised to 2,313 deaths in September 2020. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher... Don't get me wrong, I love nuclear power, but reporting numbers inaccurately/partially serves nobody. EDIT: I am not sure what justifies the 3 instant downvotes, I am literally reporting accurate numbers in the face of someone minimizing them.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Your own source says: > No one died directly from the disaster. However, 40 to 50 people were injured as a result of physical injury from the blast, or radiation burns. Since then one worker has died of lung cancer, and that is likely attributable. So zero or one death for the second worst civilian nuclear power incident in history. It's very likely that area would have had to be evacuated one way or another, no? I think it's far more fair to attribute those 2313 deaths to the tsunami and earthquake. If it was a coal plant, I don't think anyone would have been attributing 'stress deaths' to coal. Ditto any other kind of industrial or chemical plant that may or may not have been on that land. The issue seems to have been a failure to properly safely evacuate people from an industrial zone.
  - throw101010 3y ago
    Again the evacuation zone was larger due to the nature of the plant, so yes it caused more stress, to more people than a similar incident in a coal plan would have. It still is an exceptional incident and it is a ridiculously small death toll compared to the "normal" operation of coal plants yearly death toll... but it isn't a reason to minimize the numbers. As for the 1 direct death, I was referring to this part of my source: > In 2018, the Japanese government reported that one worker has since died from lung cancer as a result of radiation exposure from the event. Going by the official statement, I let them do the judging, they don't really have an interest in over-reporting as far as I know.

mwint 3y ago

… very few people were harmed in a worst-case scenario for nuclear? I don’t see your point.

peterashford 3y ago
That was in no way the worst case scenario
Zigurd 3y ago
The worst case scenario is that the Russians decide to blow up a nuclear plant in a war zone and make Europe uninhabitable.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  A single nuclear power plant will in no way make Europe uninhabitable. Not to say that it's okay if they do, but it's not the doomsday scenario you propose.

zdragnar 3y ago

...an old, deprecated design which had been mismanaged was struck by both an earthquake and a tidal wave, and no one died from the power plant failing. Meanwhile, coal kills tens of thousands every year from pollution, windmills kill engineers and maintenance workers, and shoddy solar installs and battery banks set fire to buildings. Nuclear is far from perfect, but Fukushima is a terrible example of the dangers of nuclear power.

nl 3y ago
But all nuclear power plants get old - it's the only way they can make the huge up front costs work. And it seems every single technology proposed by nuclear advocates is rapidly deprecated. Notably replacement designs are almost all completely experimental.
- eropple 3y ago
  A lot of why they're "experimental" is that large industrialized countries (especially but not exclusively the United States) decided to stop making them long enough for multiple generations of theoretical designs to pass by.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  You say this like it is a bad thing. Even this old, mismanaged plant had zero attributable deaths after what was basically the worst case scenario.

Prickle 3y ago

And it was a result of corporate cost cutting and greed. The CEOs also walked away without criminal charges. You should also look up Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant. It was closer to the epicenter than Fukushima No1, and was hit with a larger tsunami. It survived because the plant director fought management, enforced strict safety regimens and performed emergency drills every 3 months. Nuclear Power works, as evidenced by nuclear power plants and nuclear powered vessels across the planet. They are not exploding at random. The problem is exclusively human. For profit corporations cannot be trusted with nuclear power. Lowest common denominators in governments cannot be trusted with nuclear power. (Japan, a prime example. I know because I live here.) So who do we trust? A robust system of private and public organizations. Will never happen here. All the nuclear authority directors have been idiots, purchased, or claimed the position through party politics.

cptskippy 3y ago
> And it was a result of corporate cost cutting and greed. The CEOs also walked away without criminal charges. That is the fundamental problem with Nuclear. If not managed properly it has the potential to be very unsafe. Our world is too unstable and growing more so. I have doubts about our long term ability to safely manage reactors in a capitalist society.
WheatMillington 3y ago
Does corporate greed not still exist? Why shouldn't we expect another Fukushima?
- Prickle 3y ago
  Where did I say it doesn't exist? As for the second Fukushima. Look at France. They are IMO one of the best examples of well regulated and managed nuclear power. You will find mentions of maintenance recently, but this I because COVID delayed scheduled maintenance. (No one wanted the older specialized engineers catching COVID)