3 ms·

One person died from radiation exposure at Fukushima, from lung cancer, four years later. More people died from the evacuation. More deaths occur from rooftop s

One person died from radiation exposure at Fukushima, from lung cancer, four years later. More people died from the evacuation. More deaths occur from rooftop solar installations, as fatal roofing accidents are one of the most common workplace fatalities. Electrical linemen also have a high rate of workplace fatalities, which means the power lines themselves are even more deadly.

ceejayoz 3y ago
Yes, if you don't count "we had to move a hundred thousand people", it wasn't a very big deal.
- philwelch 3y ago
  The evacuations were likely an overreaction.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    So what? We don't get a do-over. The evacuations -- and all the bad outcomes that followed -- happened.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    It took more than a decade before it was deemed safe for everyone to return, and decommissioning the plant alone is costing tens of billions over several decades.
kelnos 3y ago
Not sure why you're comparing utility-scale generation in Japan to tiny-scale residential generation here. I doubt many people building utility-scale solar farms on the ground are falling off roofs during those builds. Rate of accidents for linemen is irrelevant; you need that sort of work regardless of your generation source.
- philwelch 3y ago
  Nearly a third of US solar generation is small-scale photovoltaic as of 2021; it's not a "tiny" or insignificant share of solar production..(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States#Solar_power_by_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Stat...).
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Coal is even more dangerous. In other words, we can’t be so anemic to all risk and nuclear is comparatively very safe. At these levels, the talk of safety is a non-event (like the car everyone drives in every day in is riskier as is flying in an airplane which is also safer than driving a car not to mention gun violence which is “fuck yeah ‘Merica”). The risk here can just be largely ignored as statistical noise. You still need to manage the risk carefully when things do go wrong, but you existing reactor designs are pretty safe when Fukushima which ignored a bunch of warnings actually still turned out to be mostly a nonevent. Also modern reactor designs can’t even melt down so why are we even talking about Fukushima which is using heavy water reactor designs from the 80s?

ceejayoz 3y ago

Yes, if you don't count "we had to move a hundred thousand people", it wasn't a very big deal.

philwelch 3y ago
The evacuations were likely an overreaction.
- kelnos 3y ago
  So what? We don't get a do-over. The evacuations -- and all the bad outcomes that followed -- happened.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  It took more than a decade before it was deemed safe for everyone to return, and decommissioning the plant alone is costing tens of billions over several decades.

kelnos 3y ago

Not sure why you're comparing utility-scale generation in Japan to tiny-scale residential generation here. I doubt many people building utility-scale solar farms on the ground are falling off roofs during those builds. Rate of accidents for linemen is irrelevant; you need that sort of work regardless of your generation source.

philwelch 3y ago
Nearly a third of US solar generation is small-scale photovoltaic as of 2021; it's not a "tiny" or insignificant share of solar production..(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States#Solar_power_by_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Stat...).
vlovich123 3y ago
Coal is even more dangerous. In other words, we can’t be so anemic to all risk and nuclear is comparatively very safe. At these levels, the talk of safety is a non-event (like the car everyone drives in every day in is riskier as is flying in an airplane which is also safer than driving a car not to mention gun violence which is “fuck yeah ‘Merica”). The risk here can just be largely ignored as statistical noise. You still need to manage the risk carefully when things do go wrong, but you existing reactor designs are pretty safe when Fukushima which ignored a bunch of warnings actually still turned out to be mostly a nonevent. Also modern reactor designs can’t even melt down so why are we even talking about Fukushima which is using heavy water reactor designs from the 80s?