4 ms·

> "In contrast to this, the subsequent decisions on 10km and 20km radii evacuation zones were not made on the basis of such knowledge. The 10km radius evacuatio

by Herz 2y ago

> "In contrast to this, the subsequent decisions on 10km and 20km radii evacuation zones were not made on the basis of such knowledge. The 10km radius evacuation zone was decided solely for the reason that if venting was not implemented, and the pressure continued to build unchecked in the containment vessel, then it was not clear whether an evacuation zone with a radius of 3km would be adequate. A 10km radius zone was chosen simply because it was the maximum area for an Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) as set out in the Disaster Prevention Plan; it was not decided on the basis of any kind of concrete calculations or rational grounds. As for the 20km-radius evacuation zone, due to the progression of the situation, including the hydrogen explosion in Unit 1, a radius of 20km was decided upon simply because of some people’s subjective opinions. This can hardly be called a rational decision." As you can see, the evacuation was entirely based on subjective opinions and lacked scientific basis. Refer to Page 63, Point 3 ("Baseless decisions on evacuation zones") of this report: https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NAIIC_Eng_Chapter3_web.pdf https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp... I suggest you read the full report as it details not only these decisions but also issues with communication, hierarchy, and more. The report highlights human fallibility and the impact of illogical fear, while saying very little about nuclear power itself. > Please note that N. Kan was advocating nuclear energy. On March 10, 2011, he felt assured that "nuclear power was safe and vital for Japan." After Fukushima he became hostile to nuclear power. In what way personal opinions should be relevant, besides we are talking about the same person who made the disaster, it seems human to me to point the finger at nuclear power and not himself. He is trying to defend himself. > This is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090 Your arguments are self-contradictory. You explain how the Fukushima problem is due to nuclear power, yet argue that dam-related fatalities are not the fault of dams. Either I misunderstand your argument, or you are confused. The dam directly caused those fatalities, whereas at Fukushima, the poor decisions of individuals led to unnecessary deaths. Even without an evacuation plan, the fatalities would have been fewer. Regardless, even when adding Fukushima’s evacuation deaths to the count, nuclear remains safer than dams. So, why should dams be acceptable and nuclear not? The numbers show that nuclear is inherently safe, making the "safety of nuclear" discussion irrelevant. > most efficient ways Diversification has always been the most efficient way to lower costs and improve competitiveness. Nuclear industries exist and will continue to exist. Not investing in them because of ideological reasons is shortsighted; you could make the same argument about any technology, including solar and storage. I understand that nuclear power is expensive and long to build, but most of the costs come from overregulation and low investment. Nuclear is expensive for these reasons, not because it is intrensically costly. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction?s=r https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power... Nuclear power is expensive and takes a long time to build, but much of the cost comes from overregulation and underinvestment. It's not intrinsically costly. Pretending to not invest in nuclear, doing nothing about it, and complaining on forums adds nothing to progress. The same could be said about storage, which is currently expensive and requires further investment to become affordable. Moreover, 90% of the solar and battery supply chain is in China. Any conflict could disrupt the renewable transition plans for 2050. Given the current geopolitical climate, this is not an unrealistic concern. Finally, I fully understand your ideology against nuclear power. No matter the arguments and data presented, your stance will likely remain unchanged. My response is for the benefit of other readers who might be more open to different perspectives.

natmaka 2y ago
> the evacuation was entirely based on subjective opinions and lacked scientific basis. This is not what experts say: at the time of the nuclear accident information was scarce and volatile, and they estimated that the worst potential accident would have major effects up to Tokyo and require evacuation in a huge zone. "In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and has said that at one point Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone including Tokyo and would have to evacuate" (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima... ). Also: "Kan commissioned a report for the worst-case scenario from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, which confirmed his worst fears: a potential evacuation area reaching as far as 250 kilometers from the stricken power plant—a zone of exclusion that would have reached all the way to Tokyo and affected roughly 50 million people" (source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-odyssey-of-naoto-kan-former-japan-prime-minister-during-fukushima/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-ody... ) This major disaster did not happen thanks to sheer luck (one of the parameters was wind, which blew most radionuclides towards the ocean). > issues with communication, hierarchy, and more The classic "Chernobyl was only possible in vodka-drinking derelict USSR" 'explanation' is obsolete: most nations aren't as organized as Japan, and Fukushima exposed that even in such an adequate context a nuclear accident canot be avoided and, even in a low-impact form, may causes huge damage. > The report highlights human fallibility This is the cause of each and every industrial accident. > and the impact of illogical fear It seems "illogical" after the fact. Armchair-experts always "win" every war.. but are nowhere to find when things go awry. >> N. Kan was advocating nuclear energy > In what way personal opinions should be relevant This is pertinent because it shows that the Japanese Prime Minister did not use the Fukushima nuclear accident as a mean to fight against nuclear power. > we are talking about the same person who made the disaster According to you the Prime Minister was the culprit. Source? >> This is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090 > Your arguments are self-contradictory. You explain how the Fukushima problem is due to nuclear power, yet argue that dam-related fatalities are not the fault of dams. Nope. I argue that a dam is way more robust and also that it gives numerous early signs announcing a failure while a nuclear reactor can quickly transition from 'all systems OK' to 'major accident'. Read the Banqiao dam history (from its building to its demise), and imagine a nuclear reactor in such a context. > nuclear remains safer than dams This is highly disputed, even in Fukushima's case. http://csrp.jp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2013-UNSCEAR-Report-on-Fukushima-a-critical-appraisal1.pdf http://csrp.jp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2013-UNSCEAR-Repor... https://apjjf.org/thierry-ribault/4761/article https://apjjf.org/thierry-ribault/4761/article > The numbers show that nuclear is inherently safe, making the "safety of nuclear" discussion irrelevant. Past nuclear accidents (their effects are disputed) don't reveal the max potential damage caused by a nuclear major accident. >> most efficient ways > Diversification has always been the most efficient way to lower costs and improve competitiveness. True, however renewable sources may be sufficiently diverse. > because of ideological reasons No. Risk (accident, proliferation, waste...), dependancy towards uranium, cost... are not 'ideological' biases but facts. The 'ideology' hinting at neglecting them suffers from an event such as Fukushima's accident. > costs come from overregulation Which comes from past accidents. Is, in your opinion, enhancing safety thanks to knowledge obtained thanks to accidents useless? > low investment Many nuclear projects (R&D, new reactors, refurbishing...) are running. > It's not intrinsically costly. The evolution of the production cost of various types of source is clear: https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil-no-geo_2426.png https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electri... > storage, which is currently expensive and requires further investment to become affordable. https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline > Moreover, 90% of the solar and battery supply chain is in China This is not intrinsic, many nations (even in Western Europe) did built such equipment and are willing and ready to resume doing so. In most nuclearized Western nations there is no uranium to mine, and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market. > I fully understand your ideology When there is no more argument you may indeed rant.

by Herz 2y ago

natmaka 2y ago

> the evacuation was entirely based on subjective opinions and lacked scientific basis. This is not what experts say: at the time of the nuclear accident information was scarce and volatile, and they estimated that the worst potential accident would have major effects up to Tokyo and require evacuation in a huge zone. "In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and has said that at one point Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone including Tokyo and would have to evacuate" (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima... ). Also: "Kan commissioned a report for the worst-case scenario from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, which confirmed his worst fears: a potential evacuation area reaching as far as 250 kilometers from the stricken power plant—a zone of exclusion that would have reached all the way to Tokyo and affected roughly 50 million people" (source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-odyssey-of-naoto-kan-former-japan-prime-minister-during-fukushima/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-ody... ) This major disaster did not happen thanks to sheer luck (one of the parameters was wind, which blew most radionuclides towards the ocean). > issues with communication, hierarchy, and more The classic "Chernobyl was only possible in vodka-drinking derelict USSR" 'explanation' is obsolete: most nations aren't as organized as Japan, and Fukushima exposed that even in such an adequate context a nuclear accident canot be avoided and, even in a low-impact form, may causes huge damage. > The report highlights human fallibility This is the cause of each and every industrial accident. > and the impact of illogical fear It seems "illogical" after the fact. Armchair-experts always "win" every war.. but are nowhere to find when things go awry. >> N. Kan was advocating nuclear energy > In what way personal opinions should be relevant This is pertinent because it shows that the Japanese Prime Minister did not use the Fukushima nuclear accident as a mean to fight against nuclear power. > we are talking about the same person who made the disaster According to you the Prime Minister was the culprit. Source? >> This is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090 > Your arguments are self-contradictory. You explain how the Fukushima problem is due to nuclear power, yet argue that dam-related fatalities are not the fault of dams. Nope. I argue that a dam is way more robust and also that it gives numerous early signs announcing a failure while a nuclear reactor can quickly transition from 'all systems OK' to 'major accident'. Read the Banqiao dam history (from its building to its demise), and imagine a nuclear reactor in such a context. > nuclear remains safer than dams This is highly disputed, even in Fukushima's case. http://csrp.jp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2013-UNSCEAR-Report-on-Fukushima-a-critical-appraisal1.pdf http://csrp.jp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2013-UNSCEAR-Repor... https://apjjf.org/thierry-ribault/4761/article https://apjjf.org/thierry-ribault/4761/article > The numbers show that nuclear is inherently safe, making the "safety of nuclear" discussion irrelevant. Past nuclear accidents (their effects are disputed) don't reveal the max potential damage caused by a nuclear major accident. >> most efficient ways > Diversification has always been the most efficient way to lower costs and improve competitiveness. True, however renewable sources may be sufficiently diverse. > because of ideological reasons No. Risk (accident, proliferation, waste...), dependancy towards uranium, cost... are not 'ideological' biases but facts. The 'ideology' hinting at neglecting them suffers from an event such as Fukushima's accident. > costs come from overregulation Which comes from past accidents. Is, in your opinion, enhancing safety thanks to knowledge obtained thanks to accidents useless? > low investment Many nuclear projects (R&D, new reactors, refurbishing...) are running. > It's not intrinsically costly. The evolution of the production cost of various types of source is clear: https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil-no-geo_2426.png https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electri... > storage, which is currently expensive and requires further investment to become affordable. https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline > Moreover, 90% of the solar and battery supply chain is in China This is not intrinsic, many nations (even in Western Europe) did built such equipment and are willing and ready to resume doing so. In most nuclearized Western nations there is no uranium to mine, and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market. > I fully understand your ideology When there is no more argument you may indeed rant.